Forums of the Megaverse®

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:As i already covered, MDC is not “rare”.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=153111

I believe we left off about here:
viewtopic.php?p=2958057#p2958057

37.7% is not rare.

It can be. It depends on distribution and other factors.
If 37.7% people in the US had a 2nd head, and those people all lived in Hawaii, guess what?
Having a second head would be pretty rare in the United States, and it would be entirely rare outside of Hawaii.

Its a direct contradiction of the fluff statement “MDC is Rare” (from RMB) in the various Worldbooks, where the actual statistics given show that LOTS of people are armed with MDC.

"Lots" and "rare" are relative terms.
"Lots" of people might have a "rare" disease, relatively speaking.

If Kevin intended for MDC to be rare, he should have exercised even the tiniest bit of editorial ability and not let the follow-on books outright contradict his intentions.

Definitely.
And yet, we know his intent by the repeated declarations that MDC is rare/uncommon.
He flat-out tells us his intent.

MDC is not Rare. Neither is it “common”, but it is not rare. Not when youre closing in on 40% of the detailed people having MDC.

Sounds like "uncommon."

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:IF it is true that only people with Math: Advanced can perform any algebra, even the simplest equation.
THEN the reverse is necessarily true: Anybody whom can perform even the simplest algebraic equation possesses the Math: Advanced skill.

Which is an interpretation, not RAW.

It's logic based on the position that you and others have posed, that people without a skill cannot perform any function of that skill.
The end result doesn't make sense, which is why you know that the starting premise is incorrect: "Garbage In, Garbage Out" also means that if there's Garbage Out, then there's some Garbage going IN.

No RAW governs a character without Math: Advanced skill attempting algebra. All we can do is make interpretations. There are no appeals to authority.

Which is exactly why it is incorrect to claim that Grunts cannot perform (or attempt to perform) Algebra.
There is no rule claiming that they cannot do so.

What happens when an unskilled in algebra grunt attempts algebra? What rule shall I apply? What rolls do I make?

The best we have is this:
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php ... Itemid=200
36. I'm having trouble with my players trying to use skills that they don't have. Is there a base skill percentage that should be used in this situation? (The players are trying to perform a logical and reasonable task i.e. trying to locate a door that a villain had gone through.)

Answer: For attempting a task that they are unskilled in, a character should roll percentile vs. an applicable attribute (i.e. IQ, ME, PS, PE, etc.).

I don't like using the FAQ, because it's generally just something that somebody made up, not anything official.
But I mostly remember where this one came from--it came from official Palladium staff. I don't know which one, because the original discussion it came up in was archived a LONG time ago.
So it seems to be semi-official at best.

BUT it's also a good rule, one that actually fits well with the rest of Palladium's system.

It is self evident rules that don't exist cannot be cited for anything.

[There is not a rule allowing of disallowing x] does not equal [this is forbidden].
If you had said "Grunts may or may not be able to solve basic algebra," you could have been correct.
But you flat-out claimed that they CAN NOT, in a situation that is not forbidden by the rules.
You were incorrect.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Likewise, when there are contradicting RAW, our only recourse is interpretation.

So, for the scarcity of M.D.C. a player (or character for that matter) might say, "everywhere I go I see M.D.C. even (especially) when I don't expect to because I'm told it's rare and seeing is believing". It requires an interpretation. Perhaps the scarcity is the proverbial black swan. Perhaps the contradictory text is simply that and, as a result, absurd and M.D.C. is everywhere. Both are valid even though they follow from different interpretations.

We are flat-out told that MDC is "rare" or "uncommon."
We are NOT flat-out told that MDC is common.
Therefore, "MDC is rare" or "MDC is uncommon" are RAW.
"MDC is common" is NOT RAW; it is guesswork based on the limited view of of the world that the players are shown.

Moreove, the declarations that Mega-Damage is rare or uncommon are declarations of intent about the game world. They aren't just RAW, they're also describing the Rules As Intended.
IF the material that Palladium produces creates the impression in players that those statements are incorrect, then that impression conflicts not only with RAW, but also with RAI.
I do not consider player opinions that conflict with RAW and RAI to be "valid."

RAI can be self-contradicting, too. Intentions can change. Intentions can be forgotten. Mistakes can be made. We can misunderstand intention. Lots of ways for things to go wrong with intention.

It's possible.
If you'd like to prove it in this case, show it in this case.

We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere.

We're also told stuff like (RAG 105):
Barbarians and wilderness people are the average folks of Rifts North America. We don't talk about them much because their lives are pretty grim and not particularly exotic. They are not the stuff of high adventure, so instead we tend to focus on the big cities, kingdoms, and Coalition States. However, such bastions of civilization are, however, the true rarity.

This isn't the only time that Palladium tells us (one way or another) that they avoid writing about average people and mundane items.
They focus on "the stuff of high adventure."
They focus on "the exotic."
The vast majority of their books focus on "the big cities, kingdoms, and the Coalition," which Palladium states are "rarities."
They write about the rare because they don't want to write about the mundane--they don't feel that the mundane makes for good adventure material.

They're wrong, at least partly because when they don't SHOW us the mundane, people tend to forget that it exists.
In most settings, anyway.
People don't seem to have any trouble looking at HU, seeing that all the books are about super-tech, super-powers, magic, and other stuff, and yet still understand that this stuff is NOT very common in the setting.
But that's because the setting is essentially one they're familiar with: modern Earth.
With Rifts, they're never shown the "normal" stuff, so they are more likely to believe that it doesn't exist.
But it does.

Sure, it still might be rare. Or the source material has stepped all over itself and it actually is common.

If it's rare in RAW, and rare in RAI, then it cannot "actually" be anything else.

Killer Cyborg wrote:****, "Valid" is a specific term with a specific meaning.
An argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
To date, I have not once seen any argument that MDC is not at the least "uncommon" that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
If you've seen one, then let me know.

What about "M.D.C. is rare" is undeniably true?

Sigh.
It would have been nice if you had looked at what I said there, instead of playing defensive and trying to lob it back at me.

What I am saying in the above passage is that the argument that Mega-damage is NOT rare is NOT a valid argument, by definition.
Agree or disagree with that before moving on.

Without requiring people to ignore the exceptions which are so many they're hardly exceptional but normal. We can establish whether or not clean drinking water and plumbing is common or not in the real world by counting. We cannot quantify M.D.C. in Rifts. We can't really establish the truth of the statement "M.D.C. is rare". Such a claim is immediately contradicted where M.D.C. is common because the statement does not say "M.D.C. is overall rare, although concentrations of it exist that may lead to confusion". We are still making interpretations, selecting for ourselves what is undeniably true.

Rifts is a fictional setting, and a game setting.
When a fact is stated in both RAW and RAI, that beats any conflicting interpretation that players might make.
Just like when the rules state that the Boom Gun inflicts 3d6x10 MD, it doesn't matter how many players interpret the damage to be something different: their opinions don't change the official text.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:As i already covered, MDC is not “rare”.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=153111

I believe we left off about here:
viewtopic.php?p=2958057#p2958057

37.7% is not rare.

It can be. It depends on distribution and other factors.
If 37.7% people in the US had a 2nd head, and those people all lived in Hawaii, guess what?
Having a second head would be pretty rare in the United States, and it would be entirely rare outside of Hawaii.

Which is disingenuous at best since the distribution in Rifts is pretty homogenous
As Colonel Tetsuya was showing the 37% figure was found the norm in every population examined. Not just one city, or one town or one state.
But every single city, tribe, group or organization with a break down that could be examined... had 30-40% or more of the population with MD/MDC
Thus trying to make a dodge about some obscure statistical anomaly tricks doesn't have any relevance because we already know that is not the case here and it is, at best, an attempt at obfuscation to try and raise a non-issue.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Its a direct contradiction of the fluff statement “MDC is Rare” (from RMB) in the various Worldbooks, where the actual statistics given show that LOTS of people are armed with MDC.

"Lots" and "rare" are relative terms.
"Lots" of people might have a "rare" disease, relatively speaking.

Again that is why he did the math
If 37% of the population has the same disease then it is not a rare disease.
So once again it appears that you are attempting to confuse the issue by raising non-issues to try and muddy the waters as there is no relevance whatsoever between this statement and the issue at hand.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

If Kevin intended for MDC to be rare, he should have exercised even the tiniest bit of editorial ability and not let the follow-on books outright contradict his intentions.

Definitely.
And yet, we know his intent by the repeated declarations that MDC is rare/uncommon.
He flat-out tells us his intent.

Intent? Yes
What he intended? Yes
What actually happened? Nope, not in the slightest.
Ergo the reason for the statement...
If he intended (i.e. he had a desire to see his intentions implemented) for MDC to be rare, he should have made it rare and not common.
It doesn't matter what he wanted when he started. It matters what he did.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

MDC is not Rare. Neither is it “common”, but it is not rare. Not when youre closing in on 40% of the detailed people having MDC.

Sounds like "uncommon."

Uncommon is not Rare though
Therefore if MDC is Uncommon it can not be rare.
That is sort of the point.
The claim that MDC is rare is demonstrably false. Thus it is factually correct to state that "MDC is not rare"
There is doubt and uncertainty about how non-rare it is though.
We can say for certain that ~37% of the population has it.
To get to that % we have to make the (rather bold) assumption that everyone not mentioned by specific class in every book is a 'generic' civilian.
If any portion of the population turns out to be anything besides 'generic civilian' or if 'generic civilians' turn out to have access to MD tech the percentage goes up
Thus with out knowing the final numbers we can not say if it is uncommon, common, ubiquitous or what...
...just that it is not rare.

Since the entire stance that Colonel_Tetsuya, myself and the others are taking is that MDC is not rare...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

It is self evident rules that don't exist cannot be cited for anything.

[There is not a rule allowing of disallowing x] does not equal [this is forbidden].
If you had said "Grunts may or may not be able to solve basic algebra," you could have been correct.
But you flat-out claimed that they CAN NOT, in a situation that is not forbidden by the rules.
You were incorrect.

That I am speaking in the context of the RAW has been made abundantly clear. If an action is undefined in RAW, then no rule in RAW governs the action. If an action is undefined, it cannot be done. It's not forbidden; it just can't be done. For instance, division by zero is not forbidden, but it is undefined and therefore cannot be done. To provide the definition so that the action may be done, we introduce house rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere.

We're also told stuff like (RAG 105):
Barbarians and wilderness people are the average folks of Rifts North America. We don't talk about them much because their lives are pretty grim and not particularly exotic. They are not the stuff of high adventure, so instead we tend to focus on the big cities, kingdoms, and Coalition States. However, such bastions of civilization are, however, the true rarity.[/b]

This isn't the only time that Palladium tells us (one way or another) that they avoid writing about average people and mundane items.
They focus on "the stuff of high adventure."
They focus on "the exotic."
The vast majority of their books focus on "the big cities, kingdoms, and the Coalition," which Palladium states are "rarities."
They write about the rare because they don't want to write about the mundane--they don't feel that the mundane makes for good adventure material.

They're wrong, at least partly because when they don't SHOW us the mundane, people tend to forget that it exists.
In most settings, anyway.
People don't seem to have any trouble looking at HU, seeing that all the books are about super-tech, super-powers, magic, and other stuff, and yet still understand that this stuff is NOT very common in the setting.
But that's because the setting is essentially one they're familiar with: modern Earth.
With Rifts, they're never shown the "normal" stuff, so they are more likely to believe that it doesn't exist.
But it does.

Yet City Rat O.C.C., Vagabond O.C.C., and Wilderness Scout O.C.C. exist. Petty crooks, peasants, and hunter-gatherers. Big cities, kingdoms, and the Coalition are where most of the people are. Logically, they are also full of the mundane, even if the authors say they aren't. I can read about the mundane. I can play a mundane character. Entire parties can readily be mundane characters. And M.D.C. are immediately available to those characters; it's available to anybody who wants it.

People don't have any trouble looking at HU and BtS because the intent was achieved in those games.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Sure, it still might be rare. Or the source material has stepped all over itself and it actually is common.

If it's rare in RAW, and rare in RAI, then it cannot "actually" be anything else.

Is this the same thing as claiming contradictions in RAW and RAI don't exist?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:****, "Valid" is a specific term with a specific meaning.
An argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
To date, I have not once seen any argument that MDC is not at the least "uncommon" that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
If you've seen one, then let me know.

What about "M.D.C. is rare" is undeniably true?

Sigh.
It would have been nice if you had looked at what I said there, instead of playing defensive and trying to lob it back at me.

What I am saying in the above passage is that the argument that Mega-damage is NOT rare is NOT a valid argument, by definition.
Agree or disagree with that before moving on.

Let's say I agree.

Now about the interpretation that "M.D.C. is rare" is necessarily axiomatic for everybody everywhere, rather than, say, "M.D.C. is overall rare, although concentrations of it exist that may lead to confusion"?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Rifts is a fictional setting, and a game setting.
When a fact is stated in both RAW and RAI, that beats any conflicting [i]interpretation that players might make.
Just like when the rules state that the Boom Gun inflicts 3d6x10 MD, it doesn't matter how many players interpret the damage to be something different: their opinions don't change the official text.

Right up to the point that rule gets contradicted, yes.

Natasha wrote:

dragonfett wrote:It could be implied that MDC just by the economy. MD equipment, while 100x better, also is way more expensive. That alone will make MD equipment less common.

It really is dependent on the individual game whether the higher prices mean the equipment is less common. I've been in some games where it just means a few extra zeros and still they don't even notice them.

But the average person wouldn't, or at least be more difficult to obtain.

You know how I know that MD weapons and MDC armour isn’t rare? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people issued it. I don’t have the books on me, but the CS Army alone is like 400,000 people. Why debate about one or two people in the wilderness where there are verifiably hundreds of thousands of not millions of people who have them? CS Army, Free Quebec, lots and lots of mercenaries, Northern Gun, Splugorth, Triax, Archie, plus all the various magical kingdoms. Who cares about Bob the farmer having a laser rifle when you can see that there are entire Army Corps?

dragonfett wrote:

Natasha wrote:

dragonfett wrote:It could be implied that MDC just by the economy. MD equipment, while 100x better, also is way more expensive. That alone will make MD equipment less common.

It really is dependent on the individual game whether the higher prices mean the equipment is less common. I've been in some games where it just means a few extra zeros and still they don't even notice them.

But the average person wouldn't, or at least be more difficult to obtain.

I agree.

I just don't think it's the absolute end of the story.

If I look at "M.D.C. is rare", but I see it everywhere, then I can conclude the claim is true and explain away what I see by merely attributing infallibility on the claim, taking it on faith; or I can conclude that the claim must not be true because people make mistakes.

In any case, I agree with you. But I would expect to see more than just high prices to keep it out of people's hands. The rules do not forbid most anybody from getting it. The rules permit money to flow and for M.D.C. to be commonplace, which is inconsistent with M.D.C. must be rare.

except that we already have a quote about those random people in the wilderness, as posted by eliakon earlier in this very thread:

"Rifts Adventure Guide page 105 "A good number of wilderness people still live as barbarians...blah blah" it goes on to define barbarians as including all the natives, psi-stalker tribes etc..
This is important because...
1d4x10% of any barbarian tribe will wear light to heavy environmental armor
And more importantly
"At least 1d4x10+45% of all adult males (17 and up) will have some kind of M.D. energy rifle and one other M.D. Weapon""

so those "regular people" all throughout the wilderness where MD weapons and MDC armour are supposed to be so rare that they counterbalance the frequency of MD and MDC elsewhere? yeah, they totally have MD weapons and MDC armour too. not quite as much as that 37% figure maybe, though the numbers above don't account for the fact that psi-stalkers, for example, are MDC against the supernatural, and that some small portion of those not wearing MDC armour or possessing MD weapons may have other sources of MD attacks or MDC protection (for example, if one person in the group is a ley line walker, they could potentially cast armour of ithan on several people in times of crisis, and could prepare a large number of fire globes for use in those same times of crisis. or some of the people could have pets or mounts that deal MD and have MDC. or some of the people could be superpowered as described in the conversion book. or some of those adult males could loan their spare MD weapon to someone else, since it is likely that most of them won't need to use two at a time).

Deleted post.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:As i already covered, MDC is not “rare”.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=153111

I believe we left off about here:
viewtopic.php?p=2958057#p2958057

37.7% is not rare.

It can be. It depends on distribution and other factors.
If 37.7% people in the US had a 2nd head, and those people all lived in Hawaii, guess what?
Having a second head would be pretty rare in the United States, and it would be entirely rare outside of Hawaii.

Which is disingenuous at best since the distribution in Rifts is pretty homogenous
As Colonel Tetsuya was showing the 37% figure was found the norm in every population examined. Not just one city, or one town or one state.

Key word being "examined."
What about the rest?

But every single city, tribe, group or organization with a break down that could be examined... had 30-40% or more of the population with MD/MDC
Thus trying to make a dodge about some obscure statistical anomaly tricks doesn't have any relevance because we already know that is not the case here and it is, at best, an attempt at obfuscation to try and raise a non-issue.

It's not a dodge, and I'm not using a trick.
I'm pointing out a trick.
37% sounds impressive... until you realize that it's 37% of x, where x is an unknown percentage of the whole.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

If Kevin intended for MDC to be rare, he should have exercised even the tiniest bit of editorial ability and not let the follow-on books outright contradict his intentions.

Definitely.
And yet, we know his intent by the repeated declarations that MDC is rare/uncommon.
He flat-out tells us his intent.

Intent? Yes
What he intended? Yes
What actually happened? Nope, not in the slightest.
Ergo the reason for the statement...
If he intended (i.e. he had a desire to see his intentions implemented) for MDC to be rare, he should have made it rare and not common.
It doesn't matter what he wanted when he started. It matters what he did.

That depends on a number of things.
If an author makes a typo, do you go with the typo or with the intent?
Is Emperor Tromm present in your games?
Probably not, because generally speaking when an author makes a mistake that goes against his intent, people look at it as what it is: a mistake.

Regardless, you're taking on a lot by claiming that "he did" anything in particular with mega-damage, other than to allow it to be disproportionately represented to the point where people think that it's more common than it is.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

MDC is not Rare. Neither is it “common”, but it is not rare. Not when youre closing in on 40% of the detailed people having MDC.

Sounds like "uncommon."

Uncommon is not Rare though

Except when it is.
Uncommon = out of the ordinary; unusual.
Rare = not occurring very often.

You don't see any room for overlap there?

The claim that MDC is rare is demonstrably false.

Perhaps, but no such demonstration has occurred to date.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

It is self evident rules that don't exist cannot be cited for anything.

[There is not a rule allowing of disallowing x] does not equal [this is forbidden].
If you had said "Grunts may or may not be able to solve basic algebra," you could have been correct.
But you flat-out claimed that they CAN NOT, in a situation that is not forbidden by the rules.
You were incorrect.

That I am speaking in the context of the RAW has been made abundantly clear. If an action is undefined in RAW, then no rule in RAW governs the action. If an action is undefined, it cannot be done.

The bolded part is where you depart the realm of logic, and start making stuff up at random.
If an action is undefined, it is undefined. It may or may not be done.
Shrodinger's cat isn't dead just because it's in an undefined state.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere.

We're also told stuff like (RAG 105):
Barbarians and wilderness people are the average folks of Rifts North America. We don't talk about them much because their lives are pretty grim and not particularly exotic. They are not the stuff of high adventure, so instead we tend to focus on the big cities, kingdoms, and Coalition States. However, such bastions of civilization are, however, the true rarity.[/b]

This isn't the only time that Palladium tells us (one way or another) that they avoid writing about average people and mundane items.
They focus on "the stuff of high adventure."
They focus on "the exotic."
The vast majority of their books focus on "the big cities, kingdoms, and the Coalition," which Palladium states are "rarities."
They write about the rare because they don't want to write about the mundane--they don't feel that the mundane makes for good adventure material.

They're wrong, at least partly because when they don't SHOW us the mundane, people tend to forget that it exists.
In most settings, anyway.
People don't seem to have any trouble looking at HU, seeing that all the books are about super-tech, super-powers, magic, and other stuff, and yet still understand that this stuff is NOT very common in the setting.
But that's because the setting is essentially one they're familiar with: modern Earth.
With Rifts, they're never shown the "normal" stuff, so they are more likely to believe that it doesn't exist.
But it does.

Yet City Rat O.C.C., Vagabond O.C.C., and Wilderness Scout O.C.C. exist.

None of those are mundane. Those are adventuring classes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If it's rare in RAW, and rare in RAI, then it cannot "actually" be anything else.

Is this the same thing as claiming contradictions in RAW and RAI don't exist?

Nope.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What I am saying in the above passage is that the argument that Mega-damage is NOT rare is NOT a valid argument, by definition.
Agree or disagree with that before moving on.

Let's say I agree.

Now about the interpretation that "M.D.C. is rare" is necessarily axiomatic for everybody everywhere, rather than, say, "M.D.C. is overall rare, although concentrations of it exist that may lead to confusion"?

Not sure what you mean there.
Care to rephrase?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Rifts is a fictional setting, and a game setting.
When a fact is stated in both RAW and RAI, that beats any conflicting [i]interpretation that players might make.
Just like when the rules state that the Boom Gun inflicts 3d6x10 MD, it doesn't matter how many players interpret the damage to be something different: their opinions don't change the official text.

Right up to the point that rule gets contradicted, yes.

Even then, it comes down to the nature of the contradiction, and the relative weight of it.
If one book prints the damage as 3d6x100 MD, that's obviously a mistake, for example.

you'd think that, but GB's still managed to end up with 2000 rounds of ammo despite an obvious typo..

glitterboy2098 wrote:you'd think that, but GB's still managed to end up with 2000 rounds of ammo despite an obvious typo..

I thought they only had 1,000?

When an action is undefined, it has no meaning. When we write down 5/0, all we have done is write down 5/0. We have not done division by zero. In order to solve an equation or to evaluate an expression, we need to have a result. If there is no result, then the equation has not been solved, the expression has not been evaluated. The action has not been done.

Schrödinger's cat is most certainly in a defined state; it's called superposition. Quantum mechanics is not a good source to turn to for discussions like this as very little of it makes sense and we lack the language for a great deal of it.

A Petty criminal, a hay bailer, and a hunter living off the land is not "high adventure" or "exotic".

3D6x100 is a typo only after it's been interpreted to be one. A better example, because it actually exists, is the boom gun's ammo change. Nevertheless, assuming that you accept contradictions in RAW and RAI may exist, I would like to know how I can know when they are contradictions without interpretation. Without interpretation, all I have to go on is RAW telling me it's a contradiction. That may have happened with the dog boys O.C.C./R.C.C. blurb. More generally, why should I attribute infallibility to that which the author himself says I don't have to?

Natasha wrote:When an action is undefined, it has no meaning. When we write down 5/0, all we have done is write down 5/0. We have not done division by zero. In order to solve an equation or to evaluate an expression, we need to have a result. If there is no result, then the equation has not been solved, the expression has not been evaluated. The action has not been done.

No, we don't need to have a result.
We can get one in individual games, due to GMs, but we don't need to have one.
Life goes on.

Schrödinger's cat is most certainly in a defined state; it's called superposition. Quantum mechanics is not a good source to turn to for discussions like this as very little of it makes sense and we lack the language for a great deal of it.

Cool.
Either way, it's the same thing as with Grunts and algebra. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that the answer is NO.

A Petty criminal, a hay bailer, and a hunter living off the land is not "high adventure" or "exotic".

You should reread those class descriptions again.

3D6x100 is a typo only after it's been interpreted to be one.

Incorrect.
It is a typo if it is a typographical error.
Our interpretation doesn't affect its nature.

Nevertheless, assuming that you accept contradictions in RAW and RAI may exist, I would like to know how I can know when they are contradictions without interpretation.

Define "without interpretation."

More generally, why should I attribute infallibility to that which the author himself says I don't have to?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:you'd think that, but GB's still managed to end up with 2000 rounds of ammo despite an obvious typo..

I thought they only had 1,000?

your right, but they were supposed to have only 100.. then Free Quebec, 6th printing came along, with a typo increasing their backup drum to 400 instead of 40. by 8th printing, the main drum was given an extra zero, and the erroneous values used ever since, despite the RUE and CE write ups having been edited.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:When an action is undefined, it has no meaning. When we write down 5/0, all we have done is write down 5/0. We have not done division by zero. In order to solve an equation or to evaluate an expression, we need to have a result. If there is no result, then the equation has not been solved, the expression has not been evaluated. The action has not been done.

No, we don't need to have a result.
We can get one in individual games, due to GMs, but we don't need to have one.
Life goes on.

Schrödinger's cat is most certainly in a defined state; it's called superposition. Quantum mechanics is not a good source to turn to for discussions like this as very little of it makes sense and we lack the language for a great deal of it.

Cool.
Either way, it's the same thing as with Grunts and algebra. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that the answer is NO.

A Petty criminal, a hay bailer, and a hunter living off the land is not "high adventure" or "exotic".

You should reread those class descriptions again.

3D6x100 is a typo only after it's been interpreted to be one.

Incorrect.
It is a typo if it is a typographical error.
Our interpretation doesn't affect its nature.

Nevertheless, assuming that you accept contradictions in RAW and RAI may exist, I would like to know how I can know when they are contradictions without interpretation.

Define "without interpretation."

More generally, why should I attribute infallibility to that which the author himself says I don't have to?

I did not say the "answer is NO". I said there is no answer in RAW.

I re-read the classes. City Rats are still petty criminals each time I read it. They are also those things if I want them to be. The rules are arranged to allow that. So even a mundane City Rat is armed with M.D.C. according to RAW.

How do I know anything is a typo without interpretation; that is, without a comparison being made? Is "12" a typo? Is "3D6x100" a typo?

You interpret "M.D.C. is rare" to mean that any instance of it not being rare is exceptional, regardless of how many instances we come across. Why should I accept that to the exclusion of everything else? I've asked the question several times and you keep claiming to not understanding it. If you still don't understand it, be specific about what's tripping you. When you write that tells me nothing, except that you're not going to answer the question... again.

Natasha wrote:I did not say the "answer is NO". I said there is no answer in RAW.

You said that Grunts can not do algebra.
That's a no.

I re-read the classes. City Rats are still petty criminals each time I read it.

No worries, I'll walk you through it.
First look at RUE 86, because it states the overall category that City Rats fall under.

First question:
Is that category...
a) Perfectly Mundane People and Scholars?
b) Ordinary Citizens and Scholars?
c) Boring Nobodies and Scholars?
or
d) Adventurers and Scholars?

Hint: It's D.

Next question!
Are City Rats...
a) Scholars
b) Adventurers

Hint: It's B.

Which means that City Rats are.... (wait for it)....Adventurers!

Next Question:
Who is generally the most likely to get involved in High Adventure?
a) Adventurers
b) Anybody else

(It's A.)

Okay, so now turn to RUE 88, which has the class description that you just finished reading without seeing ANY indication that City Rats are anything other than perfectly ordinary petty criminals.

City Rats are the denizens of the Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels of such a metropolis are generally nicknamed "Downsiders," but "City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the Burbs.

Note the emphasis on the Troublemaker bit. I didn't add that.
These aren't your average citizens. Note that there is no Average Citizen OCC.
These aren't even your average Downsiders. Note that there is no Downsider OCC.
These are specifically Downsider troublemakers.
Now, you might be thinking that "this must mean that the writers came up with a specific OCC for cigarette-smoking graffiti-artists who play hooky from school, THAT kind of trouble!"
But no, because that kind of thing falls pretty well within average, and the passage goes on to tell us...
They are not afraid of the city's back streets and, often, the alleys, sewer systems, and access tunnels in the belly of the beast that is the city. And they know better than the average citizen knows the highways and avenues.

City Rats aren't afraid of the back streets and alleys, and they know them better than the average citizen.
Which means that they are NOT the "average citizen."

Moving right along...
The career of a City Rat is a way of life rather than an occupation. A lifestyle glamorized (and lived) as a sort of swashbuckling streetwise hacker and petty crook who travels the undercurrents of the city streets and the electronic super-highways with ease.

Yeah... "petty crook" IS in there. It's mentioned as an additional to "swashbuckling streetwise hacker," which you seem to have somehow overlooked.
Good thing I'm here to point that part out to you.

(I shouldn't have to say this, but "swashbuckling streetwise hacker" is NOT "an average citizen," and it IS "the stuff of high adventure.")

City Rats = Adventurers.

They are also those things if I want them to be. The rules are arranged to allow that. So even a mundane City Rat is armed with M.D.C. according to RAW.

There are no mundane City Rats.
There are adventurer City Rats.
There are mundane Downsiders... but we never get to read what they're like, because KS doesn't think that mundane people are worth writing about.

How do I know anything is a typo without interpretation; that is, without a comparison being made? Is "12" a typo? Is "3D6x100" a typo?

You're losing me with your hangup on "interpretation."
I don't know what you think that word means, nor why you think it's important.
AFAIK, reading anything is a form of interpretation. So's listening to speech.
Most things are one kind of interpretation or other.
I don't know why you're talking about it.

You interpret "M.D.C. is rare" to mean that any instance of it not being rare is exceptional, regardless of how many instances we come across. Why should I accept that to the exclusion of everything else?

Well, you shouldn't.
For example, if you find official canon flat-out stating that "MDC is very common," then that'd be worth looking at.
It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.
Because it is the writers--not the players--who create the official game world.

I've asked the question several times and you keep claiming to not understanding it.

Yup.
This time was a bit clearer, but it's a kind of oblique question to ask, one that misses the point.
Here's that point again:
Clearly-stated RAW and RAI over-rule player guesswork.

Do you really need me to explain WHY...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I did not say the "answer is NO". I said there is no answer in RAW.

You said that Grunts can not do algebra.
That's a no.

I re-read the classes. City Rats are still petty criminals each time I read it.

No worries, I'll walk you through it.
First look at RUE 86, because it states the overall category that City Rats fall under.

First question:
Is that category...
a) Perfectly Mundane People and Scholars?
b) Ordinary Citizens and Scholars?
c) Boring Nobodies and Scholars?
or
d) Adventurers and Scholars?

Hint: It's D.

Next question!
Are City Rats...
a) Scholars
b) Adventurers

Hint: It's B.

Which means that City Rats are.... (wait for it)....Adventurers!

Next Question:
Who is generally the most likely to get involved in High Adventure?
a) Adventurers
b) Anybody else

(It's A.)

Okay, so now turn to RUE 88, which has the class description that you just finished reading without seeing ANY indication that City Rats are anything other than perfectly ordinary petty criminals.

City Rats are the denizens of the Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels of such a metropolis are generally nicknamed "Downsiders," but "City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the Burbs.

Note the emphasis on the Troublemaker bit. I didn't add that.
These aren't your average citizens. Note that there is no Average Citizen OCC.
These aren't even your average Downsiders. Note that there is no Downsider OCC.
These are specifically Downsider troublemakers.
Now, you might be thinking that "this must mean that the writers came up with a specific OCC for cigarette-smoking graffiti-artists who play hooky from school, THAT kind of trouble!"
But no, because that kind of thing falls pretty well within average, and the passage goes on to tell us...
They are not afraid of the city's back streets and, often, the alleys, sewer systems, and access tunnels in the belly of the beast that is the city. And they know better than the average citizen knows the highways and avenues.

City Rats aren't afraid of the back streets and alleys, and they know them better than the average citizen.
Which means that they are NOT the "average citizen."

Moving right along...
The career of a City Rat is a way of life rather than an occupation. A lifestyle glamorized (and lived) as a sort of swashbuckling streetwise hacker and petty crook who travels the undercurrents of the city streets and the electronic super-highways with ease.

Yeah... "petty crook" IS in there. It's mentioned as an additional to "swashbuckling streetwise hacker," which you seem to have somehow overlooked.
Good thing I'm here to point that part out to you.

(I shouldn't have to say this, but "swashbuckling streetwise hacker" is NOT "an average citizen," and it IS "the stuff of high adventure.")

City Rats = Adventurers.

They are also those things if I want them to be. The rules are arranged to allow that. So even a mundane City Rat is armed with M.D.C. according to RAW.

There are no mundane City Rats.
There are adventurer City Rats.
There are mundane Downsiders... but we never get to read what they're like, because KS doesn't think that mundane people are worth writing about.

How do I know anything is a typo without interpretation; that is, without a comparison being made? Is "12" a typo? Is "3D6x100" a typo?

You're losing me with your hangup on "interpretation."
I don't know what you think that word means, nor why you think it's important.
AFAIK, reading anything is a form of interpretation. So's listening to speech.
Most things are one kind of interpretation or other.
I don't know why you're talking about it.

You interpret "M.D.C. is rare" to mean that any instance of it not being rare is exceptional, regardless of how many instances we come across. Why should I accept that to the exclusion of everything else?

Well, you shouldn't.
For example, if you find official canon flat-out stating that "MDC is very common," then that'd be worth looking at.
It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.
Because it is the writers--not the players--who create the official game world.

I've asked the question several times and you keep claiming to not understanding it.

Yup.
This time was a bit clearer, but it's a kind of oblique question to ask, one that misses the point.
Here's that point again:
Clearly-stated RAW and RAI over-rule player guesswork.

Do you really need me to explain WHY...?

I didn't miss the note about swashbuckling. It's just that it's contradicted by the RAW definition of a City Rat. They are not, by definition, swashbuckling hackers. Some amount of them never become swashbuckling hackers. And "petty" contradicts "swashbuckling" when it comes to criminal behaviour. Some are "simple" and "little more than beggars"; these are adjectives of the mundane and the average, perhaps even the below average. Each City Rat has their own goals; they can be mundane if they choose to be. Nothing requires the otherwise. A vagabond never needs to do anything more high or exotic than bail hay and find new fishing holes. A wilderness scout only needs to enjoy tests of skill and strength, which may be as mundane an activity as keg tossing. O.C.C. has a RAW definition. Adventurer and scholar do not. An O.C.C. may be categorised as an adventurer or scholar, but nothing in RAW requires the occupation to be so. A man at arms is not required to be a man, have arms, or both.

Just about anybody can get M.D.C. They just have to enjoy keg tossing; they may or may not be above average (and they really can't be if they roll attributes poorly but we still give them M.D.C. equipment in any case). That's a clear contradiction of the clear "M.D.C. is rare". Otherwise, there would be rules limited the number of above average (maybe) keg tossers in the megaverse; for instance, there would be a percentage chance of having M.D.C. and it would be a small percentage.

Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

... i often push the “NPCs dont have to follow the same rules PCs do” argument, however....

In this case, a lot of the Non-magic and Non-psionic OCCs that are “MDC capable/armed” that i used in my list... are specifically called out as NPC OCCs - like the Pecos Bandit, for instance.

And, FWIW, a sizeable chunk of the people counted as “MDC capable” in my counts are Magic users or Psionics, so even the “they are NPC and may not have the same equipment, etc” argument doesnt really fly. I never even took their equipment into account, merely their magic or master psionics.

And since KC brought it up earlier... that nearly 38% is out of the total detailed population of NA, figured by adding the populations of the cities and towns detailed, and comparing them to the stated sentient population of NA in D-Bees of NA WB. So, for those following along at home... thats almost 38% of the -entire sentient population of NA-, barring the primitive tribes in Dino Swamp (as no population numbers are given)... so its actually probably closer to a solid 40% as the Dino Swamp barbarians have plentiful access to MD weapons and armor (Steeltrees, anyone?).

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:This time was a bit clearer, but it's a kind of oblique question to ask, one that misses the point.
Here's that point again:
Clearly-stated RAW and RAI over-rule player guesswork.

Do you really need me to explain WHY...?

I didn't miss the note about swashbuckling. It's just that it's contradicted by the RAW definition of a City Rat. They are not, by definition, swashbuckling hackers.

I'll bite.
How do you figure?

Some amount of them never become swashbuckling hackers.

And?

And "petty" contradicts "swashbuckling" when it comes to criminal behaviour.

Look up both words, then tell me how you think that.

Some are "simple" and "little more than beggars"; these are adjectives of the mundane and the average, perhaps even the below average.

Ah, but those "some" are still adventurers.
Simple isn't necessarily ordinary, and neither is a beggar.
You're stereotyping.

Each City Rat has their own goals; they can be mundane if they choose to be.

Incorrect.
They're adventurers.
They can be rolled up to be as normal as possible, but they'll still have more skills and starting gear than the average person, as well as cybernetics and cash that ordinary people don't get.

You want to look at an average person?
Check out FQ 135.

A vagabond never needs to do anything more high or exotic than bail hay and find new fishing holes.

Neither does a Godling or a Dragon.
That doesn't make them a good representation of ordinary people.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:And since KC brought it up earlier... that nearly 38% is out of the total detailed population of NA, figured by adding the populations of the cities and towns detailed, and comparing them to the stated sentient population of NA in D-Bees of NA WB. So, for those following along at home... thats almost 38% of the -entire sentient population of NA-, barring the primitive tribes in Dino Swamp (as no population numbers are given)... so its actually probably closer to a solid 40% as the Dino Swamp barbarians have plentiful access to MD weapons and armor (Steeltrees, anyone?).

Notice that you switched from "total detailed population" to "the entire population?"
Nice sleight of hand.

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

That IS one of Palladium's go-to responses for player questions

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

If they don't follow the rules, then you can't cite them.

Also. How many NPCs are there? How many PCs? I mean, besides "all of them".

The distinction is utterly artificial. Because the rules do not limit the number of PCs that exist. So every living being can become a PC. There has to be enough M.D.C. to around.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:This time was a bit clearer, but it's a kind of oblique question to ask, one that misses the point.
Here's that point again:
Clearly-stated RAW and RAI over-rule player guesswork.

Do you really need me to explain WHY...?

I didn't miss the note about swashbuckling. It's just that it's contradicted by the RAW definition of a City Rat. They are not, by definition, swashbuckling hackers.

I'll bite.
How do you figure?

Some amount of them never become swashbuckling hackers.

And?

And "petty" contradicts "swashbuckling" when it comes to criminal behaviour.

Look up both words, then tell me how you think that.

Some are "simple" and "little more than beggars"; these are adjectives of the mundane and the average, perhaps even the below average.

Ah, but those "some" are still adventurers.
Simple isn't necessarily ordinary, and neither is a beggar.
You're stereotyping.

Each City Rat has their own goals; they can be mundane if they choose to be.

Incorrect.
They're adventurers.
They can be rolled up to be as normal as possible, but they'll still have more skills and starting gear than the average person, as well as cybernetics and cash that ordinary people don't get.

You want to look at an average person?
Check out FQ 135.

A vagabond never needs to do anything more high or exotic than bail hay and find new fishing holes.

Neither does a Godling or a Dragon.
That doesn't make them a good representation of ordinary people.

Nor does it make them a good representation of an adventurer.

By RAW definition, the O.C.C. skills give the character everything that's required to do the job. Computer hacking isn't an O.C.C. skill. A city rat, by RAW definition, is not a hacker (and therefore not a swashbuckling one). A simple thrill seeker is not an adventurer. A beggar lives by asking for stuff, not adventuring. A thief lives by stealing, not adventuring. Nothing in any of the rules anywhere requires a City Rat (or any other character for that matter) to be an adventurer. Your conclusion was drawn from a false premise that a City Rat is an adventurer or a scholar. They are adventurers if they choose to be. Those are the rules. All anybody needs to do to acquire M.D.C. equipment is like keg throwing. They can be below average, average, or above average. We'll give it out to anybody who wants it. Doctors, scientists, bookworms, keg tossers, fishermen, tailors, peasants, farmers, hunter-gatherers, mechanics, come one come all, the rules don't give a hoot who you are. If the rules did, it would restrict the number of people who can be given M.D.C. for free. It turns out that to get M.D.C. all you gotta do is want it.

You're working on the same words and numbers as everybody else. You're "guessing" just like everyone else. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't know the distribution, you cannot claim to. You may say it clearly says "M.D.C. is rare" but the truth that it clearly says that, does not imbue the statement itself with the truth (because contradictions exist). You've only claimed that it's true, but you don't have the numbers to back it up.

Last but not least your pet requirements are over-ruled clearly and emphatically by the author himself on different occasions. Whatever you have to say about how anybody should play carries as much weight the same as the tritest opinion.

Natasha wrote:

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

If they don't follow the rules, then you can't cite them.

Also. How many NPCs are there? How many PCs? I mean, besides "all of them".

The distinction is utterly artificial. Because the rules do not limit the number of PCs that exist. So every living being can become a PC. There has to be enough M.D.C. to around.

The rules don’t limit the number of PCs, but the nature of the game does.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:This time was a bit clearer, but it's a kind of oblique question to ask, one that misses the point.
Here's that point again:
Clearly-stated RAW and RAI over-rule player guesswork.

Do you really need me to explain WHY...?

I didn't miss the note about swashbuckling. It's just that it's contradicted by the RAW definition of a City Rat. They are not, by definition, swashbuckling hackers.

I'll bite.
How do you figure?

Some amount of them never become swashbuckling hackers.

And?

And "petty" contradicts "swashbuckling" when it comes to criminal behaviour.

Look up both words, then tell me how you think that.

Some are "simple" and "little more than beggars"; these are adjectives of the mundane and the average, perhaps even the below average.

Ah, but those "some" are still adventurers.
Simple isn't necessarily ordinary, and neither is a beggar.
You're stereotyping.

Each City Rat has their own goals; they can be mundane if they choose to be.

Incorrect.
They're adventurers.
They can be rolled up to be as normal as possible, but they'll still have more skills and starting gear than the average person, as well as cybernetics and cash that ordinary people don't get.

You want to look at an average person?
Check out FQ 135.

A vagabond never needs to do anything more high or exotic than bail hay and find new fishing holes.

Neither does a Godling or a Dragon.
That doesn't make them a good representation of ordinary people.

Nor does it make them a good representation of an adventurer.

It doesn't have to.
The issue at hand is that Palladium shows us the stuff that would make for good adventures, NOT the mundane stuff that they think would not make for good adventures.
So they show us a disproportionate amount of Mega-Damage, and a proportionately lacking amount of SDC stuff.
Whether or not a Godling or City Rat could go against author intent and sit things out instead of adventuring has jack squat to do with anything.

By RAW definition, the O.C.C. skills give the character everything that's required to do the job.

Source?

A beggar lives by asking for stuff, not adventuring.

An adventurer doesn't have to live by adventuring, so....?

Nothing in any of the rules anywhere requires a City Rat (or any other character for that matter) to be an adventurer.

It doesn't have to.
The point is that they're shown to us because they're designed to be adventurers.
Whether or not any of them go against type, and end up being adventurers who don't adventure doesn't change that.

Your conclusion was drawn from a false premise that a City Rat is an adventurer or a scholar.

They are, by definition.

Last but not least your pet requirements are over-ruled clearly and emphatically by the author himself on different occasions. Whatever you have to say about how anybody should play carries as much weight the same as the tritest opinion.

No idea what you're going on about there.
I don't know what you think my "pet requirements" are.
I don't know what you think the Author says that contradicts them.
And I haven't said one damned thing about how people "should play."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

If they don't follow the rules, then you can't cite them.

Also. How many NPCs are there? How many PCs? I mean, besides "all of them".

The distinction is utterly artificial. Because the rules do not limit the number of PCs that exist. So every living being can become a PC. There has to be enough M.D.C. to around.

The rules don’t limit the number of PCs, but the nature of the game does.

I can make an unlimited number of PCs. I'll eventually run out of time, but the nature of the game will never impose limits on the number of PCs that I make. I could write software to speed up the process. The computer will run out of memory, but the nature of the game will never impose limits on the number of PCs it generates.

M.D.C. is common enough for billions of people who want it to have it. *shrug* You don't have to agree with that or even like it, but it's undeniably true. Unless you can find a rule that says that vagabonds, wilderness scouts, city rats don't get M.D.C. In that sense, you're correct to say whether they're adventurers or not has jack squat to do with anything. They have M.D.C. either way. And they have it for free.

The author also thinks that flaws and weaknesses are fun to play; mundane stuff, S.D.C. stuff falls into that category. Unless you think S.D.C. isn't weak in light of the fact that a vagabond can kill a juicer in a heartbeat.

And if S.D.C. is so uninteresting and mundane, almost all the characters wouldn't be defined as S.D.C. beings.

RUE, p 278 wrote:O.C.C. or Occupational Character Class: The term most Palladium games use to describe the character as a whole. It indicates the character's occupation, skills, skill selections, special abilities, bonuses, goals, orientation, equipment, and salary.

RUE, p 299 wrote:An Occupational Character Class (O.C.C.) provides a set of skills required to do the job. ... Occupational skills represent training that comes with one's chosen occupation and are required to do that job.

Note that nowhere does it say they're set up to be adventurers.
Note that cyber-doc is a character specialising in bionics, not adventuring.
Note that dog boys are defined as soldiers, not adventurers.
Note that operators are defined as mechanics, not adventurers.
We note these things because of your conclusion that they are set up to be adventurers proceeds from a false premise.

If a character doesn't steal, the character isn't a thief. If the character doesn't go on adventures, the character isn't an adventurer. It doesn't matter if it's set up for either. It is precisely what it is and doesn't mean jack squat in regards to the fact that it has M.D.C. equipment. All that is required is a desire.

Again, the categories are not rules. They're not even officially defined. Men at arms require neither men, arms, nor both. Practitioners of magic do not require practitioners -- the mystic is explicitly described as not a practitioner. So, yea, the adventurers and scholars category does not require adventurer or scholar. The name of the category is nowhere required to be applied to anything about the character. The O.C.C. does and does so by RAW definition.

The O.C.C. describes the character on the whole; not the category under which the O.C.C. gets filed which is just an arbitrary and at times wrong categorisation.

You're working on the same words and numbers as everybody else. You're "guessing" just like everyone else. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't know the distribution, you cannot claim to. You may say it clearly says "M.D.C. is rare" but the truth that it clearly says that, does not imbue the statement itself with the truth (because contradictions exist). You've only claimed that it's true, but you don't have the numbers to back it up.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And I haven't said one damned thing about how people "should play."

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.
Because it is the writers--not the players--who create the official game world.

RUE, p 368 wrote:Rifts® is truly designed to be limited only by your imagination. ... The Rifts® RPG contains EVERYTHING you need to play. Everything. Except friends, dice and a place to play.

I notice that it doesn't say "limited by what we think is mundane". And that it doesn't say "Everything. Except friends, dice, a place to play, and mundane ****".

Nor does it say "It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be."

I suppose the whole thing is moot long-term since eventually the Sea-titans will inherit Rifts:Earth anyways if someone hasn't destroyed it first. Sea Titans make MD capacity more common just by existing.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

dreicunan wrote:Or, perhaps, NPCs don't follow the rules for player character creation exactly and that extends to equipment, thus invalidating any attempt to use OCC equipment lists to prove anything about the rarity of mega-damage gear.

If they don't follow the rules, then you can't cite them.

Also. How many NPCs are there? How many PCs? I mean, besides "all of them".

The distinction is utterly artificial. Because the rules do not limit the number of PCs that exist. So every living being can become a PC. There has to be enough M.D.C. to around.

The rules don’t limit the number of PCs, but the nature of the game does.

I can make an unlimited number of PCs.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I'll eventually run out of time, but the nature of the game will never impose limits on the number of PCs that I make.

And that might affect your personal gameworld, but it won't impact the official gameworld one bit.

M.D.C. is common enough for billions of people who want it to have it.

Uh.... how do you figure?

*shrug* You don't have to agree with that or even like it, but it's undeniably true. Unless you can find a rule that says that vagabonds, wilderness scouts, city rats don't get M.D.C. In that sense, you're correct to say whether they're adventurers or not has jack squat to do with anything. They have M.D.C. either way. And they have it for free.

Right... so because the minority of special people have something, then it must not be uncommon...?
Forgive me for not thinking that makes much sense.

The author also thinks that flaws and weaknesses are fun to play; mundane stuff, S.D.C. stuff falls into that category. Unless you think S.D.C. isn't weak in light of the fact that a vagabond can kill a juicer in a heartbeat.

And if S.D.C. is so uninteresting and mundane, almost all the characters wouldn't be defined as S.D.C. beings.

No idea what you're going on about there.

RUE, p 278 wrote:O.C.C. or Occupational Character Class: The term most Palladium games use to describe the character as a whole. It indicates the character's occupation, skills, skill selections, special abilities, bonuses, goals, orientation, equipment, and salary.

RUE, p 299 wrote:An Occupational Character Class (O.C.C.) provides a set of skills required to do the job. ... Occupational skills represent training that comes with one's chosen occupation and are required to do that job.

Note that nowhere does it say they're set up to be adventurers.

I have no idea why you're trying to conflate "OCC" and "Adventurer."
An OCC is those things that you just quoted.
An adventurer is somebody who seeks and/or engages in adventures, particularly the standard role-playing kind, or a character (or class) who is designed for adventuring.
The fact that "City Rat" is an OCC doesn't particularly have anything to do with the fact that City Rats are adventurers, except in that the City Rat OCC is listed under the "Scholars and Adventurers" category.

Note that cyber-doc is a character specialising in bionics, not adventuring.
Note that dog boys are defined as soldiers, not adventurers.
Note that operators are defined as mechanics, not adventurers.

How am I supposed to note something that you've made up, and presented without supporting evidence?
I can note your view, and I can note that it's incorrect, but that's the extent of courtesy that I can extend you on this part.

If a character doesn't steal, the character isn't a thief. If the character doesn't go on adventures, the character isn't an adventurer.

Neither of those things is necessarily true.
If somebody goes through law school, and they pass their bar exam, they're a lawyer, for example.
Whether or not they ever practice law.
If a soldier goes through basic training, and serves in the military, they can still be considered a "warrior," even if they never go to war.
And so forth.
If you roll up a Cyber-Doc character, but the character never performs cybernetic surgery/diagnosis, then they're still a Cyber-Doc.
If you roll up a City Rat, and they never go into a city, they're still a City Rat.
If you roll up a City Rat, and they never go on any adventures, they're still an adventurer, just as any of the Scholar OCCs are still scholars even if they never go to school.

It doesn't matter if it's set up for either.

In a discussion about the intent of the books, and the nature of the classes, and about what the authors choose to show and not to show, it most certainly matters.
What we see in the books is intended to represent the unusual and exciting people and aspects of Rifts Earth, NOT the mundane. They are not a reliable sample of what the majority of the setting is like.

You're working on the same words and numbers as everybody else. You're "guessing" just like everyone else. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't know the distribution, you cannot claim to. You may say it clearly says "M.D.C. is rare" but the truth that it clearly says that, does not imbue the statement itself with the truth (because contradictions exist). You've only claimed that it's true, but you don't have the numbers to back it up.

I don't need numbers to back it up; I have RAI and RAW, clearly stated.
Numbers only matter IF they can necessarily disprove the RAI/RAW statements.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And I haven't said one damned thing about how people "should play."

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.
Because it is the writers--not the players--who create the official game world.

Right.
That's me talking about the official game world.
The official game world is NOT necessarily how people should play.
People are free to play however they like; it just doesn't affect the official game world.
Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
If your point this whole time has been "Well, in MY game world I can have MDC be common," then all I can say is "No ****, but we haven't been talking about your personal game world; we've been talking about the official game world, because that's the only thing that all the diverse players and GMs that come here have in common. None of us know (or probably care) one whit about what things are like at YOUR personal game table. When we talk about the rules, we're not talking about your house rules (unless we specifically ask what your house rules are); we're talking about the rules in the books.
Believe it or not, this conversation isn't about you.
Just like when we all talk about LotR, we're not talking about your personal fan-fic; we're talking about official canon.

Notice how you're talking about occupations, not categories. Lawyer, soldier, doctor. Notice how you're willing to violate the stated intention of the City Rat occupation to make a point.

Your conclusion about the adventurer category proceeds from the false premise that a city rat must be either an adventurer or a scholar. The category does not describe the character by the RAW. The O.C.C. describes the character by the RAW. The category does not provide the orientation by the RAW. The O.C.C. provides the orientation by the RAW. The player provides the goals by the RAW. Keep being fallacious and I'll keep pointing it out.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's set up for either.

In a discussion about the intent of the books, and the nature of the classes, and about what the authors choose to show and not to show, it most certainly matters.
What we see in the books is intended to represent the unusual and exciting people and aspects of Rifts Earth, NOT the mundane. They are not a reliable sample of what the majority of the setting is like.

The nature of the classes matter, yes. The category in which they are listed matter, no. By RAW. Which I have already explained. Nothing in the O.C.C.s, which by the RAW, exclude the mundane. The mundane is allowed for. It doesn't have to be described because it's familiar. In fact, it is explicitly written on page 368 that it's OK to play the familiar.

The recurring theme is that everything you claim is not validated by the instructions, suggestions, and guidance provided by the game's author. We'll see another example of this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's me talking about the official game world.

That's you talking for the official game world. I mean, that's not your job to do is it? Nevertheless, I asked explicitly how I shall interpret the official game world. And the response you gave was to interpret it the same way you do. It wasn't in agreement with the answer I read in the book.

It is trivial to prove "M.D.C. is not rare" by contradiction using only the RAW. Suppose M.D.C. is rare. But I do not know when to stop assigning M.D.C. to characters. This is a contradiction. Perhaps M.D.C. is like prime numbers: simultaneously rare and infinite. But M.D.C. is presumably a finite resource.

On the other hand, proving "M.D.C. is rare" by contradiction using only the RAW is not possible. Suppose M.D.C. is not rare. This leads to no contradiction. Complexity is required; assumptions and conditions and so on are needed to prove the claim -- including re-asserting without proof the claim itself. Ockham's razor suggests we ought to shave off the complexity and accept the simplest explanation. But the razor is not itself a proof. If there is a proof, it'd be interesting to see. So, yea, you do need numbers. Or something. Hell, anything -- but you're probably aware that repetition of a claim isn't supporting the claim.

The reason I accept both as valid, however, is because I can readily imagine that if we could see under the hood that we would see it is rare. To keep it in terms already used, the point at which we shall stop assigning M.D.C. to characters.

I also accept both because the intent of the game's author is not to restrict anybody's imagination. You reject that reality and substitute your own insisting everybody should think the same way. Which is a violation of the author's clearly stated intent. If I trust that the game is truly designed not to be limited by statements like "M.D.C. is rare", then I am not going to be limited by such statements. If I am expected to not trust that the game is truly designed not to be limited by statements like "M.D.C. is rare", then I'm not going to trust "M.D.C. is rare" either.

The official game world, as far as I can, is whatever we want it to be. The distinction is not made between "official" and "my". In fact, on page 370: "This all stems from my approach to role-playing as an epic story..." which indicates an official game world doesn't necessarily even exist.

I can agree to frameworks for discussing the official game world, but that's for the sake of having a conversation.

It matters what category an OCC falls in for certain rules, like Rifts Earth native superheroes from CB1.

dreicunan wrote:It matters what category an OCC falls in for certain rules, like Rifts Earth native superheroes from CB1.

It would be an interesting thing if, of all the O.C.C.s that a native Earther could select, the only adventurers were city rats and vagabonds.

But I don't see how being in that category and getting superpowers disqualifies what I said about the categories. What I would need clarification on is how getting a superpower makes you an adventurer when you weren't one before. I'm willing to eat my words if I have to.

((It's also true that CB1 isn't RUE and RUE clearly states that RUE is "EVERYTHING" (emphasis is not mine) I need. Which renders everything else in a non-trivial sense optional.))

Natasha wrote:

dreicunan wrote:It matters what category an OCC falls in for certain rules, like Rifts Earth native superheroes from CB1.

It would be an interesting thing if, of all the O.C.C.s that a native Earther could select, the only adventurers were city rats and vagabonds.

But I don't see how being in that category and getting superpowers disqualifies what I said about the categories. What I would need clarification on is how getting a superpower makes you an adventurer when you weren't one before. I'm willing to eat my words if I have to.

((It's also true that CB1 isn't RUE and RUE clearly states that RUE is "EVERYTHING" (emphasis is not mine) I need. Which renders everything else in a non-trivial sense optional.))

i think he's just saying that there are a few (very few) rules that do interact with the category of OCCs. for example, men at arms have different starting SDC, and only certain categories can have superpowers added to them if you're using the conversion book to create a brand new rifts character (specifically, only scholar and adventurer category OCCs).

but of course, if the categories were genuinely intended to be all that important, they would continue to be used outside of the core book. because as soon as you stop looking at the core book, nothing has an OCC category at all. you can certainly make some guesses as to what you think might be appropriate for new OCCs presented in the new books, but nothing really ever defines them.

just as an example, we could check some other OCCs that are not categorized as scholars or adventurers, and yet are defined as being fairly common people. i believe there are a few in the western books (i distinctly recall something like a barmaid, and i think there's a regular priest of the kind you'd expect mainly to stay in a town and teach a congregation, and probably a few others). we can check for others too. none of them are defined as adventurers, so any claims that they *must* be adventurers is moot (certainly, they *could* be adventurers, but they're never defined as such).

Shark_Force wrote:

Natasha wrote:

dreicunan wrote:It matters what category an OCC falls in for certain rules, like Rifts Earth native superheroes from CB1.

It would be an interesting thing if, of all the O.C.C.s that a native Earther could select, the only adventurers were city rats and vagabonds.

But I don't see how being in that category and getting superpowers disqualifies what I said about the categories. What I would need clarification on is how getting a superpower makes you an adventurer when you weren't one before. I'm willing to eat my words if I have to.

((It's also true that CB1 isn't RUE and RUE clearly states that RUE is "EVERYTHING" (emphasis is not mine) I need. Which renders everything else in a non-trivial sense optional.))

i think he's just saying that there are a few (very few) rules that do interact with the category of OCCs. for example, men at arms have different starting SDC, and only certain categories can have superpowers added to them if you're using the conversion book to create a brand new rifts character (specifically, only scholar and adventurer category OCCs).

but of course, if the categories were genuinely intended to be all that important, they would continue to be used outside of the core book. because as soon as you stop looking at the core book, nothing has an OCC category at all. you can certainly make some guesses as to what you think might be appropriate for new OCCs presented in the new books, but nothing really ever defines them.

just as an example, we could check some other OCCs that are not categorized as scholars or adventurers, and yet are defined as being fairly common people. i believe there are a few in the western books (i distinctly recall something like a barmaid, and i think there's a regular priest of the kind you'd expect mainly to stay in a town and teach a congregation, and probably a few others). we can check for others too. none of them are defined as adventurers, so any claims that they *must* be adventurers is moot (certainly, they *could* be adventurers, but they're never defined as such).

Agreed. The categories are not carried on. I meant that with my first sentence and I hope it didn't come off as snarky (apologies if so, it wasn't what I wanted).

I do not find the rule about S.D.C. being different for men at arms in my copy of RUE. Nevertheless, it seems that even if there is such a rule that it does not imbue the character with man-at-armshood; it doesn't make them soldiers. Mystics are clearly stated not to be practitioners of magic, yet that's the category they are in. Cyber-knights aren't soldiers, they belong to no organisation, but they're in the man at arms category. And is a Rogue Scholar a scholar or an adventurer....

hmmm... base SDC by category may have been an RMB rule.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I went over that already: two of the CS's common weapons have SDC settings.
And that does a lot of good for soldiers who are issued either or those two weapons.
What do you figure the rest of the CS soldiers do...?

Actually its 5.

Huh.
C-12
CP-40
CV-212 (which I forgot had an SDC setting)
What are the other 2?

The CA-115 and the Neural Mace, both of which can be carried by any service person easily in addition to their primary weapon.

So, if the CS chooses, they can have the entire squad capable of both MDC and SDC combat without stepping outside of their usual weapons list.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:And since KC brought it up earlier... that nearly 38% is out of the total detailed population of NA, figured by adding the populations of the cities and towns detailed, and comparing them to the stated sentient population of NA in D-Bees of NA WB. So, for those following along at home... thats almost 38% of the -entire sentient population of NA-, barring the primitive tribes in Dino Swamp (as no population numbers are given)... so its actually probably closer to a solid 40% as the Dino Swamp barbarians have plentiful access to MD weapons and armor (Steeltrees, anyone?).

Notice that you switched from "total detailed population" to "the entire population?"
Nice sleight of hand.

Its not a sleight of anything. I took the detailed populations, figured out how many of them are MDC capable, and then subtracted that number from the stated sentirnt population of North America (essentially assuming that any population not explicitly detailed has 0% MDC capability, other than Lazlo). So, if anything, im being absurdly conservative, by assuming the roughly ~11 million sentients not detailed have 0% MDC capability.

The -only- evidence to support the “MDC is Rare” argument is the blanket statement Kevin makes. There is a mountain of actual detailing, lore, and statistics that run directly contrary to that statement.

Kevin also says gems like “towns in the Colorado Baronies have to be self sufficient because the next town is hundreds or thousands of miles away” (paraphrased from New West). You know, in an area that is only a few hundred miles from edge to edge.

Relying on Kevins blanket statements to try to prove an argument is a losing battle. The books near universally contradict him, sometimes even on the same page.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:And since KC brought it up earlier... that nearly 38% is out of the total detailed population of NA, figured by adding the populations of the cities and towns detailed, and comparing them to the stated sentient population of NA in D-Bees of NA WB. So, for those following along at home... thats almost 38% of the -entire sentient population of NA-, barring the primitive tribes in Dino Swamp (as no population numbers are given)... so its actually probably closer to a solid 40% as the Dino Swamp barbarians have plentiful access to MD weapons and armor (Steeltrees, anyone?).

Notice that you switched from "total detailed population" to "the entire population?"
Nice sleight of hand.

Its not a sleight of anything. I took the detailed populations, figured out how many of them are MDC capable, and then subtracted that number from the stated sentirnt population of North America (essentially assuming that any population not explicitly detailed has 0% MDC capability, other than Lazlo). So, if anything, im being absurdly conservative, by assuming the roughly ~11 million sentients not detailed have 0% MDC capability.

...

Kevin also says gems like “towns in the Colorado Baronies have to be self sufficient because the next town is hundreds or thousands of miles away” (paraphrased from New West). You know, in an area that is only a few hundred miles from edge to edge.

Sounds like you're saying that your conclusion can't be wrong, because it's based on the numbers given out by a man who claims that the nearest town might be thousands of miles away.

Jefffar wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I went over that already: two of the CS's common weapons have SDC settings.
And that does a lot of good for soldiers who are issued either or those two weapons.
What do you figure the rest of the CS soldiers do...?

Actually its 5.

Huh.
C-12
CP-40
CV-212 (which I forgot had an SDC setting)
What are the other 2?

The CA-115

That a new one?

and the Neural Mace

Ah, okay. Good call.
I was thinking of ranged weapons.

So, if the CS chooses, they can have the entire squad capable of both MDC and SDC combat without stepping outside of their usual weapons list.

Sure.
Or they could step outside it.

(although calling it their "usual weapons list" is a bit circular logic... unless there IS an actual list.)

Natasha wrote:Notice how you're talking about occupations, not categories. Lawyer, soldier, doctor. Notice how you're willing to violate the stated intention of the City Rat occupation to make a point.

Since you've provided no quotes for context, I don't know what part of my post(s) your trying to respond to, nor what you think the "stated intention of the City Rat occupation" is.

Your conclusion about the adventurer category proceeds from the false premise that a city rat must be either an adventurer or a scholar.

That's kind of how categories work.

The category does not describe the character by the RAW. The O.C.C. describes the character by the RAW. The category does not provide the orientation by the RAW. The O.C.C. provides the orientation by the RAW. The player provides the goals by the RAW. Keep being fallacious and I'll keep pointing it out.

No idea what you're going on about there.
It sounds like you're saying that OCC categories aren't a rule. If so, I'd like to see your source for that claim.
I don't have a guess about the rest of that stuff you wrote.
"The player provides the goals by the RAW"....?
Huh?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's set up for either.

In a discussion about the intent of the books, and the nature of the classes, and about what the authors choose to show and not to show, it most certainly matters.
What we see in the books is intended to represent the unusual and exciting people and aspects of Rifts Earth, NOT the mundane. They are not a reliable sample of what the majority of the setting is like.

The nature of the classes matter, yes. The category in which they are listed matter, no. By RAW. Which I have already explained.

I think you've confused "claimed" with "explained."

The recurring theme is that everything you claim is not validated by the instructions, suggestions, and guidance provided by the game's author.

Odd claim.
Any support for it?

We'll see another example of this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's me talking about the official game world.

That's you talking for the official game world. I mean, that's not your job to do is it?

By quoting RAW written by Kevin, I am "talking for the game world"....?
Again, I have no idea how you think that makes sense.

Nevertheless, I asked explicitly how I shall interpret the official game world.

When?
Where?
Also, Huh?


(The rest of your post made as little sense as the above portion, so I have nothing new to add or ask.)

(And if anybody else can paraphrase or translate Natasha's post/argument/stance, please do so here or in PM. I'm lost on what she's trying to say, or where she's trying to come from at this point.)

Natasha wrote:We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere. That's not a guess. Is there a passage that says it's a guess based on the limited view of the world?

Re-touching on this.
Yes, we are told that it is rare.
Yes, we see it everywhere.
Seeing it everywhere does not conflict with it being rare.

Yes, there is a passage that states seeing it everywhere is because of a limited view of the world.

RUE 357
Mega-Damage weapons are still uncommon. It might not seem like it to the player characters, because getting and using such items and battling MDC opponents are all part of the job description. However, to the average person, Mega-Damage items are rare and valuable. The typical SDC town will be 90-98% SDC in its construction. Members of its militia, lawmen and/or some citizens may be the only ones who have one or two MD energy weapons and MDC armor each, plus one or two MDC combat vehicles or giant robots to the entire town; if that. Many communities hire mercs on an as-needed basis, or invite a band of mercenaries and adventurers with Mega-Damage capabilities to retire in their home town and serve as the community's champions and defenders. Some will even pay them for the service. This way the townspeople can go about the everyday necessities of living, and their champions can deal with Mega-Damage threats.

Also, from the RMB:
The average person is not likely to have psionics nor mega-damage weapons and armor. He is not a master of magic nor holder of great truths. He is one of the ordinary folk who live and struggle with the day to day hardships of life.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere. That's not a guess. Is there a passage that says it's a guess based on the limited view of the world?

Re-touching on this.
Yes, we are told that it is rare.
Yes, we see it everywhere.
Seeing it everywhere does not conflict with it being rare.

Yes, there is a passage that states seeing it everywhere is because of a limited view of the world.

RUE 357
Mega-Damage weapons are still uncommon. It might not seem like it to the player characters, because getting and using such items and battling MDC opponents are all part of the job description. However, to the average person, Mega-Damage items are rare and valuable. The typical SDC town will be 90-98% SDC in its construction. Members of its militia, lawmen and/or some citizens may be the only ones who have one or two MD energy weapons and MDC armor each, plus one or two MDC combat vehicles or giant robots to the entire town; if that. Many communities hire mercs on an as-needed basis, or invite a band of mercenaries and adventurers with Mega-Damage capabilities to retire in their home town and serve as the community's champions and defenders. Some will even pay them for the service. This way the townspeople can go about the everyday necessities of living, and their champions can deal with Mega-Damage threats.

Also, from the RMB:
The average person is not likely to have psionics nor mega-damage weapons and armor. He is not a master of magic nor holder of great truths. He is one of the ordinary folk who live and struggle with the day to day hardships of life.

Not talking about player character guesses, of course.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"MDC is common" is NOT RAW; it is guesswork based on the limited view of of the world that the players are shown.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.

Which, by the way, isn't "quoting RAW written by Kevin". It's telling me what I should do when I asked what I should do. Your answer is not found in anything "written by Kevin".

And "M.D.C. is not rare" is readily proved by contradiction. Suppose the opposite is true, M.D.C. is rare. No rule actually prevents someone from getting M.D.C. equipment. This is a contradiction and proof is done. So, yea, you need numbers. In particular, you need a number that I can look to know when to stop issuing M.D.C. equipment to characters. Without that number, nothing in RAW or RAI prevents characters from getting M.D.C. You have asserted the nature of the game will do that, but so far the nature of the game has been mum. In fact, I'm quite certain the nature of the game isn't even aware I'm consuming M.D.C. I've probably generated a thousand M.D.C. equipped characters already. And since I'm allowed to play them as average and mundane, I'm doing so. Average people might be unlikely to have M.D.C., but so far 100% of them do have it for free. It's not clear how many more will be before the nature of the game intervenes and shuts me down.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere. That's not a guess. Is there a passage that says it's a guess based on the limited view of the world?

Re-touching on this.
Yes, we are told that it is rare.
Yes, we see it everywhere.
Seeing it everywhere does not conflict with it being rare.

Yes, there is a passage that states seeing it everywhere is because of a limited view of the world.

RUE 357
Mega-Damage weapons are still uncommon. It might not seem like it to the player characters, because getting and using such items and battling MDC opponents are all part of the job description. However, to the average person, Mega-Damage items are rare and valuable. The typical SDC town will be 90-98% SDC in its construction. Members of its militia, lawmen and/or some citizens may be the only ones who have one or two MD energy weapons and MDC armor each, plus one or two MDC combat vehicles or giant robots to the entire town; if that. Many communities hire mercs on an as-needed basis, or invite a band of mercenaries and adventurers with Mega-Damage capabilities to retire in their home town and serve as the community's champions and defenders. Some will even pay them for the service. This way the townspeople can go about the everyday necessities of living, and their champions can deal with Mega-Damage threats.

Also, from the RMB:
The average person is not likely to have psionics nor mega-damage weapons and armor. He is not a master of magic nor holder of great truths. He is one of the ordinary folk who live and struggle with the day to day hardships of life.

Not talking about player character guesses, of course.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"MDC is common" is NOT RAW; it is guesswork based on the limited view of of the world that the players are shown.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.

Which, by the way, isn't "quoting RAW written by Kevin". It's telling me what I should do when I asked what I should do. Your answer is not found in anything "written by Kevin".

And "M.D.C. is not rare" is readily proved by contradiction. Suppose the opposite is true, M.D.C. is rare. No rule actually prevents someone from getting M.D.C. equipment. This is a contradiction and proof is done. So, yea, you need numbers. In particular, you need a number that I can look to know when to stop issuing M.D.C. equipment to characters. Without that number, nothing in RAW or RAI prevents characters from getting M.D.C. You have asserted the nature of the game will do that, but so far the nature of the game has been mum. In fact, I'm quite certain the nature of the game isn't even aware I'm consuming M.D.C. I've probably generated a thousand M.D.C. equipped characters already. And since I'm allowed to play them as average and mundane, I'm doing so. Average people might be unlikely to have M.D.C., but so far 100% of them do have it for free. It's not clear how many more will be before the nature of the game intervenes and shuts me down.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that a single game world actually exists, and your creating characters somehow impacts that world for all of us. That is not the case
Obviously you can create a bunch of player characters for your own game. You can change your own game world however you want. Doing that, however, in no way impacts the canon world of the game. Your PCs aren't suddenly doing things in my game. They don't exist in my game. In fact, in many if not most games your own previous characters don't exist!

So go ahead and make a billion PCs for your game and drop them all in North America. That doesn't prove a thing about the canon setting.

dreicunan wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:We are told it's rare, yet we see it everywhere. That's not a guess. Is there a passage that says it's a guess based on the limited view of the world?

Re-touching on this.
Yes, we are told that it is rare.
Yes, we see it everywhere.
Seeing it everywhere does not conflict with it being rare.

Yes, there is a passage that states seeing it everywhere is because of a limited view of the world.

RUE 357
Mega-Damage weapons are still uncommon. It might not seem like it to the player characters, because getting and using such items and battling MDC opponents are all part of the job description. However, to the average person, Mega-Damage items are rare and valuable. The typical SDC town will be 90-98% SDC in its construction. Members of its militia, lawmen and/or some citizens may be the only ones who have one or two MD energy weapons and MDC armor each, plus one or two MDC combat vehicles or giant robots to the entire town; if that. Many communities hire mercs on an as-needed basis, or invite a band of mercenaries and adventurers with Mega-Damage capabilities to retire in their home town and serve as the community's champions and defenders. Some will even pay them for the service. This way the townspeople can go about the everyday necessities of living, and their champions can deal with Mega-Damage threats.

Also, from the RMB:
The average person is not likely to have psionics nor mega-damage weapons and armor. He is not a master of magic nor holder of great truths. He is one of the ordinary folk who live and struggle with the day to day hardships of life.

Not talking about player character guesses, of course.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"MDC is common" is NOT RAW; it is guesswork based on the limited view of of the world that the players are shown.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not that you should take official and bluntly-stated RAI and RAW over "everything else," but that you should take it over player guesswork about how things might be.

Which, by the way, isn't "quoting RAW written by Kevin". It's telling me what I should do when I asked what I should do. Your answer is not found in anything "written by Kevin".

And "M.D.C. is not rare" is readily proved by contradiction. Suppose the opposite is true, M.D.C. is rare. No rule actually prevents someone from getting M.D.C. equipment. This is a contradiction and proof is done. So, yea, you need numbers. In particular, you need a number that I can look to know when to stop issuing M.D.C. equipment to characters. Without that number, nothing in RAW or RAI prevents characters from getting M.D.C. You have asserted the nature of the game will do that, but so far the nature of the game has been mum. In fact, I'm quite certain the nature of the game isn't even aware I'm consuming M.D.C. I've probably generated a thousand M.D.C. equipped characters already. And since I'm allowed to play them as average and mundane, I'm doing so. Average people might be unlikely to have M.D.C., but so far 100% of them do have it for free. It's not clear how many more will be before the nature of the game intervenes and shuts me down.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that a single game world actually exists, and your creating characters somehow impacts that world for all of us. That is not the case
Obviously you can create a bunch of player characters for your own game. You can change your own game world however you want. Doing that, however, in no way impacts the canon world of the game. Your PCs aren't suddenly doing things in my game. They don't exist in my game. In fact, in many if not most games your own previous characters don't exist!

So go ahead and make a billion PCs for your game and drop them all in North America. That doesn't prove a thing about the canon setting.

Not sure where you get that idea from. I never made claims on anyone's world. If you think so, feel free to quote the relevant text and I'll take it back if I've made such claims.

I have changed absolutely nothing of the game world. I am using the "Character Generation" rules and nothing else. What rule do you think I've changed? What rule shall I apply to ensure M.D.C. actually is rare in this canon setting? The claim that M.D.C. is rare has been proven false. A claim is not evidence of itself (especially not a false claim), so there must be a rule that quantifies "rare" somewhere that makes it true, that breaks the contradiction proving it false. If no such rule exists, then there is no RAW basis for us saying M.D.C. is rare.

My apologies, Natasha. I did misread the post of yours that I quoted. You actually are presenting yourself as believing that the game itself ("the nature of the game") is somehow supposed to enforce this rarity of MD by preventing you from giving it to Player Characters. That is even less sane than what I'd read before, so I wilk assume and hope that you are doing that for effect.

You feel that because player characters can get MD capacity, then MD is not rare in thr game world. KC has already quoted Kevin S on that issue anyways, but set that aside. The fact that Player Characters can get MD from the start has no bearing on the relative rarity of MD in the game world. The word "rare" has already had definitions in English posted. There doesn't need to be a game mechanic limiting how much MD is available PCs for MD to be rare in the setting, because PCs are not part of the setting! So if you want to prove that Kevin S is wrong about his game world, try to do so with an argument that actually can do so. "PCs can get it" doesn't prove that.

dreicunan wrote:My apologies, Natasha. I did misread the post of yours that I quoted. You actually are presenting yourself as believing that the game itself ("the nature of the game") is somehow supposed to enforce this rarity of MD by preventing you from giving it to Player Characters. That is even less sane than what I'd read before, so I wilk assume and hope that you are doing that for effect.

You feel that because player characters can get MD capacity, then MD is not rare in thr game world. KC has already quoted Kevin S on that issue anyways, but set that aside. The fact that Player Characters can get MD from the start has no bearing on the relative rarity of MD in the game world. The word "rare" has already had definitions in English posted. There doesn't need to be a game mechanic limiting how much MD is available PCs for MD to be rare in the setting, because PCs are not part of the setting! So if you want to prove that Kevin S is wrong about his game world, try to do so with an argument that actually can do so. "PCs can get it" doesn't prove that.

"nature of the game" was what Killer Cyborg told me would take care of things. Your guess is as good as mine.

It's not that I think Kevin is wrong. I've said a few times I can easily agree with M.D.C. is rare. The problem is that there is an inescapable contradiction that falsifies "M.D.C. is rare" from a strictly RAW perspective. As such, it is false to say that RAW achieves the intent of making M.D.C. rare. House rules are required to actualise "M.D.C. is rare". But what I'm being told is that RAW does that, but no actual passages have been forthcoming. All I get is the claim "M.D.C. is rare" as if it somehow stands on it own. I get told "well if the claim 'M.D.C. is rare' is false, then I need numbers" and so I prove it false and I get no numbers, just some hands being thrown up pretending to have no idea what I'm asking for or simply ignoring that I've proven the claim false or pretending that I haven't or any other number of avoidance strategies.

There needs to be a game mechanic. It doesn't make sense to say something is blue and then go and paint it red and still call it blue. The red paint has to be removed or new blue paint has to be applied. And so a definition of rare does not quantify the amount of M.D.C. in the world. It does not break the contradiction that I can follow the rules without deviation from them and end up with M.D.C being not rare. If I follow the RAW and M.D.C. is not rare, then the assertion that M.D.C. is rare is false until a RAW or a House Rule provides the resolution. So far, no RAW has been provided. And I'm not demanding that there be. All I am saying is we ought not say things exist when, in fact, they don't. If we are going to say they exist, we ought to support our assertions by showing and not telling.

NPCs do not follow any RAW so they're irrelevant. If PCs aren't a part of the setting, then we are left quite literally with nothing.

Let me re-iterate that I don't think Kevin is wrong. I think the text is incomplete, which is kinda common with PB isn't it

dreicunan wrote:My apologies, Natasha. I did misread the post of yours that I quoted. You actually are presenting yourself as believing that the game itself ("the nature of the game") is somehow supposed to enforce this rarity of MD by preventing you from giving it to Player Characters. That is even less sane than what I'd read before, so I wilk assume and hope that you are doing that for effect.

You feel that because player characters can get MD capacity, then MD is not rare in thr game world. KC has already quoted Kevin S on that issue anyways, but set that aside. The fact that Player Characters can get MD from the start has no bearing on the relative rarity of MD in the game world. The word "rare" has already had definitions in English posted. There doesn't need to be a game mechanic limiting how much MD is available PCs for MD to be rare in the setting, because PCs are not part of the setting! So if you want to prove that Kevin S is wrong about his game world, try to do so with an argument that actually can do so. "PCs can get it" doesn't prove that.

The argument has already been made.
The only argument for "MDC is Rare" is that there is an unsupported fluff text saying this is so"
The argument for "MDC is not rare" are:
-the repeated demonstration of the fact that large percentages of the population start with MD/MDC equipment
-the repeated demonstration of the fact that a significant portion of the population is MDC
-the repeated demonstration of the fact that a significant portion of the population has inherent MD/MDC capability
-the repeated demonstration that every single identified and detailed example of places and populations in every book includes MD/MDC
-The repeated demonstration that MDC equipment can be made from scrap and salvage
...
Basically the argument at this point is quite literally "Facts don't matter, there is this one statement that invalidates all facts to the contrary"
Its sort of tiresome actually because it is intellectually dishonest of people to argue that the "not rare" people have to make their claim, prove their claim, provide their evidence...
...and then when they do get to simply state "that doesn't count because we say it doesn't count, go find something better than mere facts"