Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:47 am**

It was asked how it is useful. I showed how it is useful.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:02 pm**

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:Well since being useful to someone else doesn't matter to me who cares?

Someone who understands that their own desires to not dictate the over all quality/usefulness of a product.

So no one.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:38 pm**

Dr. Doom III wrote:So no one.

No man. I know it seems like a lot of people might be self-centered jerks but not everyone is. :lol:

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:06 pm**

flatline wrote:
Sureshot wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yes, no one is saying Palladium can't write metaplot, that dosn't explain how it's a good idea to do so.

So far yourself and those who dislike metaplot have not given any good reasons not include it. Beyond "I dont like it. Therefore everyone else must dislike. And PB cant include any metaplot in any of its rpgs because if it".

Because it invalidates books I already own.

Because it guarantees that my current campaign world will be out of sync with the game world, especially if the time line in the books advances faster than the time line in my campaign.

Because it potentially ruins any plans I have for existing powers in the game world by making those decisions for me after I've already purchased my books and spent time and energy developing my plans.

But most importantly, because a well designed setting is precariously balanced such that player characters can give small but significant nudges to have meaningful effects on the setting. By advancing the time line, players are reduced to mere bystanders as important things happen in spite of them.

--flatline

You are going to have to explain this one to me...
How does "meta-plot" invalidate previous books when it takes the previous books into account?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:03 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Because it invalidates books I already own.

You are going to have to explain this one to me...
How does "meta-plot" invalidate previous books when it takes the previous books into account?

Let's say book A says FOO and then book B explains that FOO is no longer true because such and such has happened. Now the true state of things is BAR.

If I accept that the state of things is now BAR, then the section of A that describes FOO is now a historical footnote. Or, if I decide to reject BAR so that FOO is still relevant, then the section of B that describes BAR is irrelevant. Either way, pages of books that I paid for have become useless unless I find a way to make FOO and BAR coexist.

--flatline

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:36 pm**

flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Because it invalidates books I already own.

You are going to have to explain this one to me...
How does "meta-plot" invalidate previous books when it takes the previous books into account?

Let's say book A says FOO and then book B explains that FOO is no longer true because such and such has happened. Now the true state of things is BAR.

If I accept that the state of things is now BAR, then the section of A that describes FOO is now a historical footnote. Or, if I decide to reject BAR so that FOO is still relevant, then the section of B that describes BAR is irrelevant. Either way, pages of books that I paid for have become useless unless I find a way to make FOO and BAR coexist.

--flatline

that makes even less sense than your first statement.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:51 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Because it invalidates books I already own.

You are going to have to explain this one to me...
How does "meta-plot" invalidate previous books when it takes the previous books into account?

Let's say book A says FOO and then book B explains that FOO is no longer true because such and such has happened. Now the true state of things is BAR.

If I accept that the state of things is now BAR, then the section of A that describes FOO is now a historical footnote. Or, if I decide to reject BAR so that FOO is still relevant, then the section of B that describes BAR is irrelevant. Either way, pages of books that I paid for have become useless unless I find a way to make FOO and BAR coexist.

--flatline

that makes even less sense than your first statement.

Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner whose integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:11 am**

flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner who's integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

or it could be that the game offers more than one time frame...
which means that the info in both books is valid.
which is how Rifts presents its material.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:24 am**

flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner who's integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

Yes.
But only in a "There's no point in playing a WWII RPG if I can't kill Hitler and change the future" sort of way.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:33 am**

Dr. Doom III wrote:
Akashic Soldier wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:Well since being useful to someone else doesn't matter to me who cares?

Someone who understands that their own desires to not dictate the over all quality/usefulness of a product.

So no one.

There are lots of things I don't like that are perfectly fine, functional, and good.

/Sub

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:55 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner who's integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

Yes.
But only in a "There's no point in playing a WWII RPG if I can't kill Hitler and change the future" sort of way.

Then I have failed because that is not at all what I'm describing. Unfortunately, since I can't figure out how you got what you got out of what I wrote, I am at a loss to try to explain further.

--flatline

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:18 am**

flatline wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner who's integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

Yes.
But only in a "There's no point in playing a WWII RPG if I can't kill Hitler and change the future" sort of way.

Then I have failed because that is not at all what I'm describing. Unfortunately, since I can't figure out how you got what you got out of what I wrote, I am at a loss to try to explain further.

--flatline

Hm.
Okay.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:29 am**

Ninjabunny wrote:
flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Let's say book A says FOO and then book B explains that FOO is no longer true because such and such has happened. Now the true state of things is BAR.

If I accept that the state of things is now BAR, then the section of A that describes FOO is now a historical footnote. Or, if I decide to reject BAR so that FOO is still relevant, then the section of B that describes BAR is irrelevant. Either way, pages of books that I paid for have become useless unless I find a way to make FOO and BAR coexist.

--flatline

that makes even less sense than your first statement.

Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner whose integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

In this case book A is only invalidated by book B if book B happens at the literally same time as book A, otherwise book B would have to happen some time after book A.

I suppose if you were using time travel in your campaign, you might find a use for both A and B, but whether or not you guys agree with me, the point of all this is that I feel I would get more value for my money if the publisher didn't advance the time line. And if I feel like I'm getting a better value, then the publisher is more likely to get more of my money.

If advancing the time line sells more books than not advancing the time line, then perhaps advancing the time line is the correct business decision. But if I represent their target audience, then they're doing it wrong.

--flatline

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:26 am**

flatline wrote:
Ninjabunny wrote:
flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner whose integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

In this case book A is only invalidated by book B if book B happens at the literally same time as book A, otherwise book B would have to happen some time after book A.

I suppose if you were using time travel in your campaign, you might find a use for both A and B, but whether or not you guys agree with me, the point of all this is that I feel I would get more value for my money if the publisher didn't advance the time line. And if I feel like I'm getting a better value, then the publisher is more likely to get more of my money.

If advancing the time line sells more books than not advancing the time line, then perhaps advancing the time line is the correct business decision. But if I represent their target audience, then they're doing it wrong.

--flatline

But you are not their only target audience.
They want both those who will use the Meta-plot and those who will not.
Now which of these books is likely to appeal to both?
Book A which just gives us the tools for the sand box.
or
Book B which not only gives us the tools but also a story that utilizes those tools.

NOTE: I did not ask which appeals to just you; but, which is more likely to appeal to both audience types.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:35 am**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Ninjabunny wrote:
flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner whose integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

In this case book A is only invalidated by book B if book B happens at the literally same time as book A, otherwise book B would have to happen some time after book A.

I suppose if you were using time travel in your campaign, you might find a use for both A and B, but whether or not you guys agree with me, the point of all this is that I feel I would get more value for my money if the publisher didn't advance the time line. And if I feel like I'm getting a better value, then the publisher is more likely to get more of my money.

If advancing the time line sells more books than not advancing the time line, then perhaps advancing the time line is the correct business decision. But if I represent their target audience, then they're doing it wrong.

--flatline
But you are not their only target audience.
They want both those who will use the Meta-plot and those who will not.
Now which of these books is likely to appeal to both?
Book A which just gives us the tools for the sand box.
or
Book B which not only gives us the tools but also a story that utilizes those tools.

NOTE: I did not ask which appeals to just you; but, which is more likely to appeal to both audience types.

Problem is they don't really give you the tools for a sandbox. They give you only specific toys that go with their metaplot. They do not give you the tools to take things in any direction. Yes you can jury rig them but those tools are not really there. and that is the problem we are complaining about. For example. what if you really do want Tolkeen to win. Those tools are not really there. How do you make Tolkeen powerful enough to kick coalition ass? I guess I have to make those tool myself don't I?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:58 am**

Daeglan wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:But you are not their only target audience.
They want both those who will use the Meta-plot and those who will not.
Now which of these books is likely to appeal to both?
Book A which just gives us the tools for the sand box.
or
Book B which not only gives us the tools but also a story that utilizes those tools.

NOTE: I did not ask which appeals to just you; but, which is more likely to appeal to both audience types.

Problem is they don't really give you the tools for a sandbox. They give you only specific toys that go with their metaplot. They do not give you the tools to take things in any direction. Yes you can jury rig them but those tools are not really there. and that is the problem we are complaining about. For example. what if you really do want Tolkeen to win. Those tools are not really there. How do you make Tolkeen powerful enough to kick coalition ass? I guess I have to make those tool myself don't I?

I think you are mistaking story for Tools.
Tools in a sandbox game are the Dramatis Personae, the Cities, the gear, the spells, etc...
The war can be a tool.
But; How the war itself plays out and ends is the story line.
Not all of us care to play out the war one way or the other but rather have it play as a backdrop in our games.
Do mean to imply those folks are not important?
Or are you just mad because your favorite side did not win?
The CS winning was a forgone conclusion before the first book was even at the printer...
1st rule of writing: If you destroy the BB you are unemployed.
And the CS were at the time THE Biggest Tech antagonist in NA.
And one of the main tropes of Rifts is Tech vs Magic.
Notice also that the FoM were not the other combatant in the "Great Tech/Magic War"?
I wonder why that is?
Oh right because Kevin said there would be a winner in this war.
And Rule 1 comes into play again...
FoM is one of THE Biggest Magic Antagonists in NA.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:40 pm**

Your the one who implies the story is a tool. Not I. I am the one saying they do not really give you tools. They give you toys that go with their story. Tools would be far more useful for everyone.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:20 pm**

Daeglan wrote:Your the one who implies the story is a tool. Not I. I am the one saying they do not really give you tools. They give you toys that go with their story. Tools would be far more useful for everyone.

Really? care to show me where I say that?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:54 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
flatline wrote:
Ninjabunny wrote:
flatline wrote:Okay, I'll try again with a less abstract example. Imagine book A describes two communities and their troublesome relationship. If book B comes out and describes some terrible war that drastically impacted the communities such that nothing stated in book A applies anymore, then either the pages in book A describing those communities is wasted space, or the pages in book B describing those communities is wasted space if I choose to reject the changes.

Either way, I've paid for material that is useless to me. It's similar to Apple changing the connector on the iPhone so that all the plugs you've purchased are no longer useful to you. Imagine the poor BMW owner whose integrated iPhone dock won't work with his new iPhone unless he pays $800 to the dealer to have it "upgraded".

Does that make more sense to you?

--flatline

In this case book A is only invalidated by book B if book B happens at the literally same time as book A, otherwise book B would have to happen some time after book A.

I suppose if you were using time travel in your campaign, you might find a use for both A and B, but whether or not you guys agree with me, the point of all this is that I feel I would get more value for my money if the publisher didn't advance the time line. And if I feel like I'm getting a better value, then the publisher is more likely to get more of my money.

If advancing the time line sells more books than not advancing the time line, then perhaps advancing the time line is the correct business decision. But if I represent their target audience, then they're doing it wrong.

--flatline
But you are not their only target audience.
They want both those who will use the Meta-plot and those who will not.
Now which of these books is likely to appeal to both?
Book A which just gives us the tools for the sand box.
or
Book B which not only gives us the tools but also a story that utilizes those tools.

NOTE: I did not ask which appeals to just you; but, which is more likely to appeal to both audience types.

In this post.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:11 pm**

Daeglan wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:But you are not their only target audience.
They want both those who will use the Meta-plot and those who will not.
Now which of these books is likely to appeal to both?
Book A which just gives us the tools for the sand box.
or
Book B which not only gives us the tools but also a story that utilizes those tools.

NOTE: I did not ask which appeals to just you; but, which is more likely to appeal to both audience types.

In this post.

You are seeing what you want in that statement...
Nothing I said there even remotely implies that story is a tool in the context of this discussion.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:15 pm**

Daeglan wrote:Your the one who implies the story is a tool. Not I. I am the one saying they do not really give you tools. They give you toys that go with their story. Tools would be far more useful for everyone.

Toys are tools... Until that is understood; we will not be able to further this conversation.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:18 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:Toys are tools... Until you understand that we will not be able to further this conversation.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:35 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Toys are tools... Until you understand that we will not be able to further this conversation.

:ok:

This100%

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:18 pm**

I rarely, if ever, see discussions here on the metaplot in Triax 2, the metaplot in South America laid out in Aftermath, the metaplot of Naruni Enterprises' failure, the metaplot of the 4 Horsemen (I know they don't give the play by play, but it's clear that the world didn't end, and Erin Tarn, Victor Lazlo, Sir Thorpe, and Rama-Set are still alive), or any other updates that have happened since the original Rifts came out.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:52 pm**

Hotrod wrote:I rarely, if ever, see discussions here on the metaplot in Triax 2, the metaplot in South America laid out in Aftermath, the metaplot of Naruni Enterprises' failure, the metaplot of the 4 Horsemen (I know they don't give the play by play, but it's clear that the world didn't end, and Erin Tarn, Victor Lazlo, Sir Thorpe, and Rama-Set are still alive), or any other updates that have happened since the original Rifts came out.

As a rule, I object to all advancements of the time line.

I think that things that require resolution shouldn't be part of the setting, but instead should have been done as adventure or scenario books that aren't tied to a particular point in time. There's no reason why the 4 Horsemen or the SoT series couldn't have been handled this way.

--flatline

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:30 pm**

The reason would be that wasn't the way Kevin wanted it done. And your oppinion seems to be in the minority.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:53 am**

I think what posters are forgetting is that Kevin can and will if he wants advance the timeline. He does not need to ask anyone permission to do so. Let alone the fans. I just can't understand why somehow metaplot in a book ruins a persons game. Or the implication that one is forced to use it. It's like being on the Paizo message boards where occasionally a fan complains about Paizo releasing new material. And apparently they feel the need to buy it. Or can't say no to players wanting to use new material. Basically it's somehow Paizo fault because they either can't say no or are compulsive buyers of new material. As I said I respect that some here and elsewhere dislike metaplot. Yet the attitude of "I don't like it so it can't be in a book and PB can't include it in a product" is Jay05 posted in the minority imo.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:59 am**

Sureshot wrote:I think what posters are forgetting is that Kevin can and will if he wants advance the timeline. He does not need to ask anyone permission to do so. Let alone the fans. I just can't understand why somehow metaplot in a book ruins a persons game. Or the implication that one is forced to use it. It's like being on the Paizo message boards where occasionally a fan complains about Paizo releasing new material. And apparently they feel the need to buy it. Or can't say no to players wanting to use new material. Basically it's somehow Paizo fault because they either can't say no or are compulsive buyers of new material. As I said I respect that some here and elsewhere dislike metaplot. Yet the attitude of "I don't like it so it can't be in a book and PB can't include it in a product" is Jay05 posted in the minority imo.

When have we said he is not allowed to? I never said he was not allowed to. I said it is a bad Idea. Rather like George Lucas making Greedo shoot first. George was allowed. It still was a bad idea.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:46 am**

I think that what flatline is going for is the idea that a meta plot can be hard to get away from. Especially if you have serious players that follow the material just as well as you do. We dont have to use it and often dont use it, but the sporadic nature of the tools and resources for the game make it hard to run it, and the support for the game is frankly, lacking, so it make some of us in the "minority" resent a large meta-plot cause when ever we try and talk about it we have to deal with the fan boy squad to come and tell us why we are wrong all the time. We can't get a real character generator for one of the most complicated and poorly organized character creation systems? I resent the Rifts meta plot based solely on the fact that it receives the priority over actually fixing the game, and making it more accessible. There seems to be a real elitist vein running through the core of the modern Rifters. Maybe since they keep saving the company, they feel the need to protect their investments.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:01 am**

If you look in prior threads, they're looking into rules modifications. I don't know that it's a matter of priority as much as it is size of the job.

/Sub

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:35 am**

Subjugator wrote:If you look in prior threads, they're looking into rules modifications. I don't know that it's a matter of priority as much as it is size of the job.

/Sub

The Meta- Plot doesn't seem to be hurting for material. How big a job was all that meta plot creation compared to a working, accessible set of rules? Anything relevant to the other 95% of my response?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:56 am**

I don't like everything in the metaplot either. Yet understand and respect that some do not. I just take issue with posters saying it should not be included in any rpg because they don't like metaplot. If a person does not like a mateplot then a person does not have to use it. I play Pathfinder and one of the countries in the game is essentially France during the french revolution. The difference being is that they seem to be permanently stuck in anarchy. Yet none of the the other countries even some of the more evil ones chose to invade it. Somehow a country that keeps changing and removing their government ever couple of months is immune from invasion. Sounds dumb to me yet I'm not telling paizo to alter, change or remove any planned metaplot because I don't like what they did. It's almost like people resent being told that they can include or ignore at will whatever they don't want to include in their own games.

As for the tools needed to run the game I agree they are lacking yet imo has no bearing on the issue of metaplot. A lack of character generator is not going to make me like the Rifts metaplot more or less. I think it's a seperate issue entirely. I'm pretty sure the company is including metaplot because it's been in the rpg from the beginning. Kevin imo seems to want to continue whatever metaplot is in the books. As well as the freelancers. I doubt that every person who donated money to help pb is in favor of metaplot either. To be blunt that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. That's like saying that every person who likes meat is in favor of some of the horrible treatment given to animals in meat packing plants. Would I like to see a rules revision or streamlining. Of course. Yet if including metaplot in their books makes PB more money than they have to look at their bottom line first. Fans second. A company having financial trouble has to do whatever it can to get out of that kind of trouble.

As for why I say that some are saying Kevin is not allowed to include more metaplot. Well if your saying that you don't like metaplot in the rpg why would you be in favor of Kevin including more metaplot later on. While no one is directly saying so it's kind if implied imo. At least that's how I'm reading it and maybe wrong

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:56 am**

I like canon. It provides a common ground when starting a campaign. That is not to say the characters actions do not divulge from canon during the course of the campaign, but at least from the beginning, all players and GMs alike understand a baseline, and the level of understanding continues since both the players and the GMs experience the same changes.

Heck, one reason why I like Rifts over Splicers, Heroes Unlimited, Nightbane, and other Palladium games is because of the common ground. If I tell you, you are standing in front of a CS grunt, you have a pretty good idea of what that character is. In Heroes, I say, you are standing in front of a mutant...heck, that can be anything. As a GM, I can mass produce plenty of grunts, mercs, whatever...but its so time consuming to make a villain group of mutants because each character is so specialized.

I like meta-plot. We all do. If you didn't, you would not like a series of movies, or a TV show.

I loath the cop-out "Its your game, do what you want", or "Don't like a rule? Just toss it out!" No. I expect a game that introduces meta-plot to stick to hard fast rules, continuity, and canon. That's why I am critical when Palladium introduces a dependency or conflict in their canon. I wish Palladium would quit either introducing Meta-Plot, or quit being lazy when doing it. I'd prefer the latter. Same for game mechanics, because the laziness spills over to there as well. We look to the authors for guidance because they wield authority. When a question go unanswered or is vague, it is frustrating and looks like they do not care about the fans.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:16 pm**

Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:03 pm**

Kagashi wrote:I like canon. It provides a common ground when starting a campaign. That is not to say the characters actions do not divulge from canon during the course of the campaign, but at least from the beginning, all players and GMs alike understand a baseline, and the level of understanding continues since both the players and the GMs experience the same changes.

Heck, one reason why I like Rifts over Splicers, Heroes Unlimited, Nightbane, and other Palladium games is because of the common ground. If I tell you, you are standing in front of a CS grunt, you have a pretty good idea of what that character is. In Heroes, I say, you are standing in front of a mutant...heck, that can be anything. As a GM, I can mass produce plenty of grunts, mercs, whatever...but its so time consuming to make a villain group of mutants because each character is so specialized.

I like meta-plot. We all do. If you didn't, you would not like a series of movies, or a TV show.

I loath the cop-out "Its your game, do what you want", or "Don't like a rule? Just toss it out!" No. I expect a game that introduces meta-plot to stick to hard fast rules, continuity, and canon. That's why I am critical when Palladium introduces a dependency or conflict in their canon. I wish Palladium would quit either introducing Meta-Plot, or quit being lazy when doing it. I'd prefer the latter. Same for game mechanics, because the laziness spills over to there as well. We look to the authors for guidance because they wield authority. When a question go unanswered or is vague, it is frustrating and looks like they do not care about the fans.

Expecting the producers of the game to do everything for you is just as much of a cop out if you think about it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:09 pm**

Kagashi wrote:I like canon. It provides a common ground when starting a campaign. That is not to say the characters actions do not divulge from canon during the course of the campaign, but at least from the beginning, all players and GMs alike understand a baseline, and the level of understanding continues since both the players and the GMs experience the same changes.

Heck, one reason why I like Rifts over Splicers, Heroes Unlimited, Nightbane, and other Palladium games is because of the common ground. If I tell you, you are standing in front of a CS grunt, you have a pretty good idea of what that character is. In Heroes, I say, you are standing in front of a mutant...heck, that can be anything. As a GM, I can mass produce plenty of grunts, mercs, whatever...but its so time consuming to make a villain group of mutants because each character is so specialized.

I like meta-plot. We all do. If you didn't, you would not like a series of movies, or a TV show.

I loath the cop-out "Its your game, do what you want", or "Don't like a rule? Just toss it out!" No. I expect a game that introduces meta-plot to stick to hard fast rules, continuity, and canon. That's why I am critical when Palladium introduces a dependency or conflict in their canon. I wish Palladium would quit either introducing Meta-Plot, or quit being lazy when doing it. I'd prefer the latter. Same for game mechanics, because the laziness spills over to there as well. We look to the authors for guidance because they wield authority. When a question go unanswered or is vague, it is frustrating and looks like they do not care about the fans.

Great post Kagashi!

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:02 am**

Stonefur wrote:
Expecting the producers of the game to do everything for you is just as much of a cop out if you think about it.

The difference being is that I'm not expecting Kevin and company to do everything for me. It's not like they are asking me personally what metaplot should be included in Rifts titles. Nor am I basing everything on my game on the Rifts metaplot. I take what I want to use and ignore what I do not want to use, No one is forcing me to use or ignore anything. Does metaplot help for me quite a bit. I just don't have the time or will to rebuild everything from scratch and build a rifts background from scratch. Whatever Kevin and company can write in the books to help me run my game is a good thing at least for me. Again why does having metaplot equal having to use it. I own the Advanced Races guide for Pathfinder. Think D-bees of North america style book except for some monsters from the bestiary as well as expanding on some of the core races. Constructs (golems etc) and half- constructs by raw can't be raised or ressurected. I really that rule and in my games they can be brought back from the dead. No paizo ninjas are knocking my door down making me stick to the original rule or my game ending. With respect to those who dislike metaplot your making a huge issue out of something that is imo not much of one.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:32 am**

Stonefur wrote:
Kagashi wrote:I like canon. It provides a common ground when starting a campaign. That is not to say the characters actions do not divulge from canon during the course of the campaign, but at least from the beginning, all players and GMs alike understand a baseline, and the level of understanding continues since both the players and the GMs experience the same changes.

Heck, one reason why I like Rifts over Splicers, Heroes Unlimited, Nightbane, and other Palladium games is because of the common ground. If I tell you, you are standing in front of a CS grunt, you have a pretty good idea of what that character is. In Heroes, I say, you are standing in front of a mutant...heck, that can be anything. As a GM, I can mass produce plenty of grunts, mercs, whatever...but its so time consuming to make a villain group of mutants because each character is so specialized.

I like meta-plot. We all do. If you didn't, you would not like a series of movies, or a TV show.

I loath the cop-out "Its your game, do what you want", or "Don't like a rule? Just toss it out!" No. I expect a game that introduces meta-plot to stick to hard fast rules, continuity, and canon. That's why I am critical when Palladium introduces a dependency or conflict in their canon. I wish Palladium would quit either introducing Meta-Plot, or quit being lazy when doing it. I'd prefer the latter. Same for game mechanics, because the laziness spills over to there as well. We look to the authors for guidance because they wield authority. When a question go unanswered or is vague, it is frustrating and looks like they do not care about the fans.

Expecting the producers of the game to do everything for you is just as much of a cop out if you think about it.

How so? When you watch a movie, do you only watch half of it then rush out of the theater and pretend the rest of the story? No. I see Rifts as a book or movie and I enjoy the dynamic setting.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:44 am**

Sureshot wrote:Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:52 am**

Kagashi wrote:The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Ah okay that makes sense. Pardon my mistake.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:55 am**

Kagashi wrote:
Sureshot wrote:Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Amen.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" and "As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" are some of the most completely useless non-answers imaginable.
It's like asking what the weather forecast is going to be, and being told, "Let your smile be your umbrella!"

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:57 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Kagashi wrote:
Sureshot wrote:Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Amen.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" and "As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" are some of the most completely useless non-answers imaginable.
It's like asking what the weather forecast is going to be, and being told, "Let your smile be your umbrella!"

and when there are multiple answers and you are told use the one that works for you? is that a cop out as well?
Or is it the designer giving you options?

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:48 am**

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Daeglan wrote:Still waiting for you to tell us the benefit of advancing the time line. cause I see none.

New story potentials.
New conversation topics.
New technologies.
New enemies.
New allies.

For this, rather than advancing it bit by bit, why not just establish a 'future' time setting where a bunch of stuff has happened?

For example, this was already done in the past with Chaos Earth.

After the Bomb did this by being the future of TMNT, and is written into Transdimensional TMNT.

We could just make a 'FutuRifts' series of books where everything Kev wants to happen has happened.

If it's established that the timeline advanced and Erin Tarn played a crucial role but in a GM's campaign she got assassinated, it throws a wrench into the plausibility engine.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 am**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Kagashi wrote:
Sureshot wrote:Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Amen.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" and "As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" are some of the most completely useless non-answers imaginable.
It's like asking what the weather forecast is going to be, and being told, "Let your smile be your umbrella!"

and when there are multiple answers and you are told use the one that works for you? is that a cop out as well?
Or is it the designer giving you options?

My view on this is, "How is it presented?".
Meaning:
1) If in book A rule X is given and in book B a non-mutual rule Y is given, then I do not like it.

2) If rule X is given in book A and book B comes along and states Optional Rule Use this rule Y, if you do not like rule X. then that is good-more options.

If 1 is done and the author/publisher says "Do what you like man" there will still be arguments on canon and dismissing the first rule, because the second came later and thus a replacement. If 2 is done, the arguments can focus on the actual rules and which is better.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:27 am**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:there's no way a tiny nation like tolkeen could put up the fight it did. honestly, with crap like the TW Iron Juggernauts and all the other gear palladium pulled out of nowhere to give to tolkeen, as well as new spells to make them able to resist artillery/nuclear bombardment, the only reason that tolkeen put up as much fight as it did was writers fiat.

Seriously, to anyone who says the only reason the CS won was because it was protected by Writers Fiat, I challange them to show a way for tolkeen to win without all of the new spells/equipment/TW gear that was printed in the SoT books...that only exist because of writers fiat.

Bear in mind, find a way for them to win when the opening attempt was a nuclear strike.

Without the Swollowing Rift spell, that came into exsitance ONLY to give Tolkeen plot immunity from nuclear strikes, they lose right away.

To be fair: as much as there was massive power creep for Tolkeen in SoT, we didn't know much about them before that...

The CS on the other hand, was established at a given level in RMB then boosted like crazy in CWC and Navy and whatever else.

I think it was potentially worse to make the CS stronger in those books (since it advances the timeline) than to have Tolkeen be strong (since they hadn't really been statistically established as weak)

Nekira Sudacne wrote:I'll take out all the stuff in Coalition War Campaign if you take out all the Seige on Tolkeen stuff.

Leaving us with what info about Tolkeen being weak? A blurb in the back of the 'world' description in the RMB?

Damian Magecraft wrote:Did any one really believe that Tolkeen was going to win? Rule one of writing... If you kill the BB you are unemployed.

Who says the Coalition States are the Big Bad?

I mean, screw all the alien intelligences invading the earth, let's pick on the isolationist humans. Atlantis, Myrrlin, the Lizard Kingdom, Four Horsemen, etc. no threats there.

Oh wait, did I say Four Horsemen?

If there was ever an example of meta-plot, I'm not sure Tolkeen is the beacon we should be shining here guys.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Other than the die-hard CS fans, does anybody really believe that the CS are the heroes of the setting?

You don't have to see the CS as heroes to not think of them as the 'big bad' though.

Akashic Soldier wrote:they are also "The State" which is primary source of dehumanization throughout history. So even if they succeeded, at what cost?

Yeah, the CS as 'dehumanizing' by keeping humans alive and conquering the earth for them.

Sorry we can't just hand it over to Dunscon, Nxla, Splynncryth, Set, etc. so they can help keep earth human.

Lost Seraph wrote:If there are any heroic Americans around, it's the New Navy. Not the CS hypocrites who wouldn't know freedom if it bit them in the rear. Executing or placing anyone in prison who disagrees with you sure isn't heroic.

Not a fair criticism. The New Navy has a fleet of massive ships. Everyone's in a mobile fortress. They can sail away from their enemies.

The CS has a lot more people to protect. They're under a lot more pressure. I'll reread Underseas but I'm pretty sure that the New Navy isn't extremely hostile to the CS. The main crap they'd get in is over what Sea Titans are.

Prior to the Psi Stalkers being MDC in RUE I'd think the Titans were too weird for the CS to accept. Now I'm not so sure.

Akashic Soldier wrote:An invasive species is an invasive species. Sure, not all of them are like the Xix, but in a world where wishes come true and your neighbor's angry teenage kid can beat someone to death with an SUV because he drank too much, the world will never be a "safe place" for humanity.

People too often forget the SDC squishies and what the world is like for them. I mean sure, if humans could all be Sea Titans, Neo-Humans, Amazons, or whatever other MDC species, there might be a point. But they're not, and people can't live in MDC armor all the time.

Galroth wrote:I don't have Dbees of North America.

It's also in CWC. What books do you have with MDC d-bees in them?

Galroth wrote:Haha, nope. This probably deserves its own thread though.

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Galroth wrote:Haha, nope. This probably deserves its own thread though.
I agree.

Link if it's made? Finding it interesting.

Sureshot wrote:Rifts on the other hand was written with some metaplot imo from the start some has been developed and some has not. It was not written to be a game with no metaplot.

Actually Rifts initially had no metaplot. You can't have metaplot on the first book, it can only occur in successive books.

In the case of Rifts, we can track down major event changes from book to book.

Erin Tarn is probably a very good example of this. For example, the original Vampire Kingdoms has her making notes and then IS NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN.

But lo and behold, we do hear from her again, as Wormwood and England are published.

That can sorta be forgiven though, because it takes a while to figure out that Erin Tarn didn't die, she just rifted to another dimension and across an ocean but...

The biggest thing really has to be how I'm pretty sure in WB10CWC or whenever when we get Erin and Thorpe's stats a second time (the first time being in WB4Africa prior to facing the Apocalypse demons) that now they have a bunch of gear AFTER DEFEATING THEM.

The four horsemen are a big bad that PCs probably want to face, and they're dead. We even know who survived the battle.

Prior to CWC10 I believe it could have been possible for Thorpe to die defending Erin Tarn in a Rifts game. But if that had happened, it gets overwritten because nope, he's still hanging out with her, teaching kids all about CK's new anti-tech powers in SoT 4.

flatline wrote:Let's say book A says FOO and then book B explains that FOO is no longer true because such and such has happened. Now the true state of things is BAR.

If I accept that the state of things is now BAR, then the section of A that describes FOO is now a historical footnote. Or, if I decide to reject BAR so that FOO is still relevant, then the section of B that describes BAR is irrelevant. Either way, pages of books that I paid for have become useless unless I find a way to make FOO and BAR coexist.

Damian Magecraft wrote:that makes even less sense than your first statement.

Flat's explanation made complete sense, what're you missing?

Jay05 wrote:that wasn't the way Kevin wanted it done. And your oppinion seems to be in the minority.

While there are democratic aspects to book sales I don't really like this way of disregarding people's objections.

The problem here is basically: PCs can't save Tolkeen. Nothing they can do can save it. Otherwise, each and ever book afterward built on a 'destroyed-Tolkeen' Earth will contradict the environment a GM has built.

The natural solution to this is obviously: Rifts. IE portals through time and space.

The players save Tolkeen in their home dimension... only to be rifted to an 'alternate' (Kevin's) Earth where Tolkeen lost.

I think Palladium needs a new version of TTMNT. Transdimensional Rifts maybe?

Daeglan wrote:Lucas making Greedo shoot first. George was allowed. It still was a bad idea.

Everyone mentions this, and it bothers me, but changing Anakin's force ghost from an old man to Hayden Christianson bothered me a HECK of a lot more. I mean, anti-heroes sometimes don't manage to draw first, but the latter changes the whole metaphysics of how the force works to give Jedis immortality.

Kagashi wrote:
Stonefur wrote:Expecting the producers of the game to do everything for you is just as much of a cop out if you think about it.
How so? When you watch a movie, do you only watch half of it then rush out of the theater and pretend the rest of the story? No. I see Rifts as a book or movie and I enjoy the dynamic setting.

This analogy is a bit weird since Rifts is an RPG and based on pretending though...

I think a better analogy would be if you're painting an apple and then Kevin comes and steals your red paint halfway through so you can't finish painting it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:02 am**

My point, and one people seem to miss in countless threads about plot in PB is this: We're all playing in Kevin's sandbox. Period. Therefore, what's printed in books published by his company either fit his vision, or they don't see print. And he has stated numerous times that it was his long reaching plan to have the CS wipe out Tolkeen. I'm a Tolkeen fan, and as my posts show deffinitely not a CS guy and it still doesn't bother me. Why? Because as was stated in the OP I too like cannon. And if I want a new PC to start out as a Tolkeenite, I can still do that, they'll just be a refugee with a serious hate on for the CS. I do not see a problem here. Still tons of room for deep roleplaying where a Tolkeenite is concerned.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:39 am**

Jay05 wrote:My point, and one people seem to miss in countless threads about plot in PB is this: We're all playing in Kevin's sandbox. Period. Therefore, what's printed in books published by his company either fit his vision, or they don't see print. And he has stated numerous times that it was his long reaching plan to have the CS wipe out Tolkeen. I'm a Tolkeen fan, and as my posts show deffinitely not a CS guy and it still doesn't bother me. Why? Because as was stated in the OP I too like cannon. And if I want a new PC to start out as a Tolkeenite, I can still do that, they'll just be a refugee with a serious hate on for the CS. I do not see a problem here. Still tons of room for deep roleplaying where a Tolkeenite is concerned.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:48 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Amen.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" and "As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" are some of the most completely useless non-answers imaginable.
It's like asking what the weather forecast is going to be, and being told, "Let your smile be your umbrella!"

I kind of both agree and disagree. If for example a rule about mages regenerating PPE is written differently in 3 books and someone says "don't like the rule than don't use it" I agree is a cop out because the issue of the rule be inconsistent is not being recognized. Now if Kevin and/or a freealancer want to do a new metaplot series for rifts and some on the boards don't like or want metaplot and are told "don't like it don't use it" and than claim that being told that is a cop out. Well sorry no imo it's not a cop out. It's like last week I had a customer demand we validate a in store promotion that began on the 4th of dec and ended on the 8th on the 10th of dec. Myself the manager, and general manager all told that customer no and than she claimed that was a cop out on our part. That person was still not going to get us to validate that promotion

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:53 am**

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Jay05 wrote:My point, and one people seem to miss in countless threads about plot in PB is this: We're all playing in Kevin's sandbox. Period. Therefore, what's printed in books published by his company either fit his vision, or they don't see print. And he has stated numerous times that it was his long reaching plan to have the CS wipe out Tolkeen. I'm a Tolkeen fan, and as my posts show deffinitely not a CS guy and it still doesn't bother me. Why? Because as was stated in the OP I too like cannon. And if I want a new PC to start out as a Tolkeenite, I can still do that, they'll just be a refugee with a serious hate on for the CS. I do not see a problem here. Still tons of room for deep roleplaying where a Tolkeenite is concerned.

Agreed and seconded.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:22 am**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Kagashi wrote:
Sureshot wrote:Saying that you dont have to use it is not a copout. There are plenty of things that I wish would go my way in terms of metaplot in a rpg. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. I choose what I want and dont want to use in terms of metaplot. While I agree PB could do more in the consitency in Rifts and other game lines. Well we cant get what we want all the time. For me the therm copout is getting too often used in the gaming community. Right up there with "broken" and "overpowered". Seriously do anyone here tell the guy at the supermarket when he cant get the price what he wants "copping out".

The cop out I refer to when somebody finds a decrepency and asks a simple question for clarification (ie. How exactly does X2 damage stacking work?), and the response is, "do what ever feels right man...."

No. I want an answer. Not watch fans go back and fourth without a leg to stand on fighting online and locking threads.

Amen.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" and "As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" are some of the most completely useless non-answers imaginable.
It's like asking what the weather forecast is going to be, and being told, "Let your smile be your umbrella!"

and when there are multiple answers and you are told use the one that works for you? is that a cop out as well?
Or is it the designer giving you options?

Naw man, we are talking about the core rules and game mechanics here; these need to be solid and not open to interpretation. Its laziness and lack of attention to detail between various authors. Tell me, what is the MDC value of the Triax Forager bot? Look it up in SB1:R, GMG, and WB5. You'll find 3 different answers with no fluff text to tell you why there is a difference. This is unacceptable. And I'm not talking about stuff specifically labeled "optional" here. This is something that is flat out something that is supposed to be a pretty solid fact. Now, the Abolisher bot from SB1 and CWC have different stats because the version in CWC says in the flavor text that it is specifically an upgrade. This is an acceptable change and does exhibit attention to detail.

Don't get me wrong, Palladium does it right some times. For example, they have really clarified the "plus two attacks for living" debate really well ever since RUE by addressing it straight up. RUE and Post-RUE printings of books (January 2006 to present) even have changed the number of attacks for NPCs and monsters with set numbers of attacks. They have also fixed what is and what isn't an auto dodge bonus, eliminating the debate between message board members, players, and GMs alike. This was something that was a pretty big topic on the boards back in the late 90s.

Oddly enough, parry/auto parry does not work this way and it seem it still runs on the RMB way of doing things. This is where the laziness comes in. They are not consistent and now the same debate that used to rage in the 90s about auto dodge can be fought about auto parry.

Canon and game rules should not be open to interpretation.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.

Re: Why I like canon.