Forums of the Megaverse®

Rogerd wrote:[

If it was the same basic system, there would be no conversion. Guess what you gave to do? Convert it. Thus different enough, to not be the same. Not that difficult to comprehend

This is way I said that I understand where you are coming from. They you are looking at this from the POV of sometime that is Very OCD. This is not the POV that I have.
Same system does not mean "No Conversions". Same system means they share the same basic rules.

This difference is why you don't like me calling you out, when your VP makes you not see the reality of 'What Is." You are the one that is out of line in this at this moment. I literally can't understand what I'm saying for you.I am not you. But because I do understand what you are saying and agree that the books need updating, I can't Agree with your conclusions about how to do the updating.
Again, I literally can't understand this for you, you have to do this yourself. That is if you can even allow yourself to even think about whether or not you other people could have a different view point than you do.
If you can't even do that I will have nothing to do with you.

jaymz wrote:English Drew

"This is a lie" attacks the statement, not you. Attacking you would be "you are a liar". It wasn't. Try again.

Calling me a lier is attacking me and my honor. If you can't understand that then tell me if you tell the truth and then someone calls you a lier for telling the truth is it an attack on your truthful statement, you or both?

To paraphrase a traditional saying to be truthful...
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words cut to the heart."

Except he said your statement is a lie not that you are a liar, if you don't know the difference then I can't help you. Words mean things.

A statement can be a lie but the person not be a liar since the person may think the statement true even though it is a lie. Get over it.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:This is way I said that I understand where you are coming from. They you are looking at this from the POV of sometime that is Very OCD. This is not the POV that I have.
Same system does not mean "No Conversions". Same system means they share the same basic rules.

This difference is why you don't like me calling you out, when your VP makes you not see the reality of 'What Is." You are the one that is out of line in this at this moment. I literally can't understand what I'm saying for you.I am not you. But because I do understand what you are saying and agree that the books need updating, I can't Agree with your conclusions about how to do the updating.
Again, I literally can't understand this for you, you have to do this yourself. That is if you can even allow yourself to even think about whether or not you other people could have a different view point than you do.
If you can't even do that I will have nothing to do with you.

Calling me a lier is attacking me and my honor. If you can't understand that then tell me if you tell the truth and then someone calls you a lier for telling the truth is it an attack on your truthful statement, you or both?

To paraphrase a traditional saying to be truthful...
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words cut to the heart."

You have been told, not just by ne, that they do not share the same rules, not really. If I want to use additional rules in a PF 1e, from a newer book. No conversion required, not on jot of work other tham GM consent. That is one system.

What you are trying to steadfastedly hold omto is that they use the same rules system, which is false. It just is, and Pathfinder 1e, which evolved into PF 2e, all prove my point. One system. Age system further proves it. One system. Mutants and Masterminds, one system.

What Palladium has is an example of Runequest, to Legend, to Mythras. While some rules are similar, they are also fundamentally different systems. So to take material from one requires conversion.

PF1e stuff, requires none.

So not only is your statement objectively, and mechanically wrong. This has been demonstrated to you multiple times, and not just by me. The same system means zero conversion and that is a fact. It really is that simple and no amount of deflection by you will ever change that.

jaymz wrote:Except he said your statement is a lie not that you are a liar, if you don't know the difference then I can't help you. Words mean things.

You can't state what was said is a lie without saying/implying the one who said it is a lier. The two go hand in hand.

FIA I'm done arguing this. With one of y'all even acknowledging anything that could be agreed on. There is no point in even trying to get an agreement on anything. Even that we both have different view points.

And since I got called a lier when I was demonstrating that I understood his VP, it is not me being the <Very Rude Person> that can't even understand I was describing his VP in objective terms.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You can't state what was said is a lie without saying the one who said it is a lier. The two go hand in hand.

This is false and further proves my point regarding English comprehension. They are not the same and never will be.

To the mods: Some forums I visit allow for the banning of people from individual threads by listing them in either the title or original post, due to their unwillingness to not utterly derail the conversation. It's something to consider adopting. It would stop, among other behavior, people like the above from posting slightly masked obscenities before passive-aggressively editing their posts in a sense of getting one over on the community.

To everyone that isn't trying to actively disrupt a thread, what sort of tweaks seem useful for individual settings, and how might they be best presented? How much material would need to be repeated across books? As an example, rogerd previously mentioned listing a few powers in the character creation/skills/combat rules book. Similarly, while detailing a Cinematic/Pulp/Gritty slider in the first book seems necessary, it makes sense to also list it in a generic megaverse book, should such be seen as useful.

What, if any, changes might be useful to apply to a skill list? Many of the Communications skills, for example, haven't been cleaned up since the first Mechanoids book, and like many things relating to technology didn't particularly take into account even then-current understanding.

Similarly, spells/psionics/superpowers are all over the place in terms of relative utility. There are Minor superpowers that are clearly mechanically superior to Major ones, and the levels and costs of abilities are essentially drawn from a hat. Claims that having such elements with no respect to any kind of balance is in truth an adjunct to roleplaying, and that dirty munchkins are somehow doing it wrong is nothing more than a deflection. How might it be most efficient to clean up all the disparate lists?

The inflated number of different classes are, by and large, an excuse to pad books, and not there to help better define a play space. That may be useful to certain types of publisher, but for readers it's rather insulting. For my druthers I'd reduce the number of classes considerably, or even eliminate them entirely for certain characters, and tie to character description certain setting basics, so as to provide an easy shorthand.

Okay I have been thinking about this. In all settings the character is essentially a hero, whether writ large in some costume or more as a street level; and this is the same no matter the setting. So I think things need to reflect that dynamic.

Forgot to mention the other important part: Power Levels. I discussed earlier about Gritty / Pulp / Cinematic. And this is where this part should be listed, and could even have other levels too.

So in essence you would end up with a point spend type scenario, although i am not sure how much should be in each category.

Levels
Street: This would include characters like MCU tv Daredevil, or lower power stuff from Ninja's and Superspies (minus chi powers).
Heroic (Pulp) and would include most of the training categories from HU, and would be generally peak human.
Metahumans (Low-level): Include various Enhanced from HU
Superhuman: This includes higher powered meta's such that they are now
Mega's: This is where you get into the real MDC type territory.
Supernatural: Full-on MDC.

Stats-

Str: For this we would need a strength table, similar to Mythic D6, more on this below.
Dex
Int
Stamina
Willpower
Speed: This is is miles per hour.

Then have a cost as you then have to assign it to a category.

* Strength. In mythic D6, the strength table distinguishes between normal, metahuman, and superhuman strength. Each increment shows the weights that can be lifted in each group. On a general attribute thing, we also need to be able to mark if someone is peak human too. More in keeping with the comic benchmarks prevalent in fiction etc. Although this is more of a general thing.

Traits-
A lot of rpg's have these now, whether Unisystem, M&M, but these represent minor tweaks and abilities each individual may possess, these are minor in nature such as Fast Reflexes, or increased healing, and a costing could be used to represent this.This stops the heals X number of SDC / MDC per minute or hour. You could easily import from any other source you feel appropriate for your game.

Point of note, although this could also include any kind of Heightened Sense, or things like Danger Sense, and you well put this here, but I believe this should be more powerful characters. For street level this should be placed in Heroic Arcana (More on this later).

This leads to the next bit of chargen - whether you want to bespoke, or use templates (character classes). I have termed them templates purely around the fact that most can be grouped together in some form - whether it is under Special Training, Enhanced (to cover later), or Powered (Magic-users). Each of these have a cost.

Templates-
Fantasy (5): These have a much smaller skillset when compared to their modern day counterparts.

Modern (10): These are more expensive primarily because we know a lot more, literate, can use a computer, work a tablet and phone. As such a SpecOps will be heavily proficient in most, if not all types of military knowledge (we’re talking heroic level individuals).

Special Training (15): This includes ancient masters, weapon masters, and physical training.

Other (10): This includes those that provide some kind of add-on whether genius, or hardware.

Enhanced (20): This covers Metahumans, Mutants, Super Soldiers and such types of indiviiduals.

Powered (10): Magic-users. Now all the classes for theseare in my mind totally superfluous and can easily be classified (probably the wrong word) under various forms. May discuss this later.

Skills-
To make the game cleaner, and to save mid-range percentages, it might be better to split it-

Novice (1), Professional (2), Expert (4), Master (6), Legendary (8), Mythical (10)

You can easily assign a percentage level to each as you believe appropriate for your game. I would suggest basic 25% increments. I mean why make life difficult. And this is where I picked a few things up from Savage Worlds.

Combat*: HTH. This covers various combat abilities. Again all of these are assigned in the above levels. I do not believe all the additional bonuses, and stuff seen in various combat styles are required. most will be able to block, parry, disarm - otherwise what is the point of learning it, right? This covers all your styles whether HTH Basic, Martial Arts, Assasin etc. WP's have been integrated here under two extra categories.

Weapons: This covers things like Sword and Shield, or Two Swords.
Weapon Groups: This idea has been lifted from both Modern Age and Pathfinder. So a Soldier from Fantasy seems incredibly underpowered, verging on the useless. Have him start getting good in the various groups and suddenly he becomes a bit of a badass.

Professional: Covers individual skills like archery, or proficiency in types of armour, so a character would pick anything from the skill list. Anything anomalous would be subject to GM approval. So you easily have an articulate, and well read soldier, or an assassin that has a philosophical standpoint (other than money) as to why they kill.

Programs: The main core programs, which will change dependent upon the setting.

Specialisation: Unique fields within a particular discipline, e.g. quantum physics, Lore: Demons.

*Programs: Arts, Domestic, Communications, Computer, Criminal, Domestic, Electrical, Espionage, Intelligence, Lore, Mechanical, Medical, Military, Physical, Pilot, Police, Rogue, Science, Technical, Wilderness

I would in general use the Palladium list purely as a guideline. So if I was to pick an Assassin (whether Fantasy or Heroes) both would have Espionage, but the Fantasy equivalent would probably not have Intelligence program as this is more something that we have refined in later times. Plus the modern assassin's espionage would likely be far better. Why?

If you have ever watched a Spy series for example Covert Affairs, or others, where this kind of thing is discussed where they talk about a rotating team, following from both the front and the back. I do not believe this is the kind of thing that would be known in a Fantasy setting. But GM's are free to decide otherwise, of course. This is purely my opinion.

At this point, it will become obvious, this is where you could leave out the template section, and utterly bespoke your character from scratch, and assign any particular programs required; and truly make each character your own.

Metaphysics
This here is good stuff, and essentially covers magic, as i am somewhat unsure how to make one set of powers without turning it into M&M, which while i suggested it, may certainly not be desirable for some. So this is a kind of halfway house idea, to kind of meet in the middle.

Heroic (1): Those of you familiar with Runequest, or the main D100 system. These are the powers you have to find masters to teach you, whether it is Dim Mak, or class powers from DnD or PF, or Age - or anywhere else really.

Gifts (1): Those given to Paladins, or Champions of the gods, and include Smite, or Youth, or Immortality. Now these can easily crossover with Heroic stuff, as what one master may teach you could bestowed.

Cantrips (1): Lifted from Lords of Gossamer, and includes low level PB spells too, e.g. Globe of Light. Some can be used in a somewhat combatative manner, Sleep, or Pain, or Combustion (Handy for those that cannot get a fire to light). These can be learnt by absolutely anyone.

Spells (3): This covers individual spells, or powers, which essentially throws spell levels out of the window.

Arcana (5): Covers whole areas of magic, e.g. Fire (Pyromancy), Light (Photomancy).

Disciplines (3): These are more appropriate to things like Nightbane, or Urban Fantasy type games. Kind of stolen from Hunter the Vigil Dread Powers.

Talents: Lesser (3), Greater (5): These are spell-like abilities, up to those seen in Spheres of Power, and as such are essentially half-powers in many ways, but are all essentially magical.

I could complicate this further and go into different energy sources, whether magic, bio-energy although this latter one needs some form of clarification. Bio-Energy is generally the source of super powers, and as such I have subsumed some of the above categories to into this particular power set as I firmly believe that you do not need too much divergence really. So each category could easily be a toolkit to allow switching between categories, or from global list of abilities which would allow equality between everyone.

I have a lot more, but wanted to leave this here for discussion. If you totally hate this, that is fine but thought i would at least put something up for review, and as I said discussion. In essence I want people to see this is an attempt at a constructive discussion.

Discuss should you feel so inclined.

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:You can't state what was said is a lie without saying the one who said it is a lier. The two go hand in hand.

This is false and further proves my point regarding English comprehension. They are not the same and never will be.

A lie is an untruth meant to decive. To say something is a lie is to call the one who said it a lier.

Since the OP has failed to understand the full meaning of the English word 'lie' I understand how he can fail to understand the rest of what I have said.

jaymz wrote:A statement can be a lie but the person not be a liar since the person may think the statement true even though it is a lie. Get over it.

This is also a misunderstanding of the English language.

A person can say an non-truth believing it to be true and it is not a lie. This is the only way that a non-truth be said without it being a lie.
Thus you are misunderstanding what a lie is also. And your actions, if ill informed, make you an accomplice to the attack the OP made.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:A lie is an untruth meant to decive. To say something is a lie is to call the one who said it a lier.

Since the OP has failed to understand the full meaning of the English word 'lie' I understand how he can fail to understand the rest of what I have said.

Wrong.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie?s=t

an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

So your statement would fall under the third excerpted above. Now either contribute in a meaningful manner or depart the thread.
Thanks.

What the OP has suggested for changes seams to me he should just write up his own RPG system and try it out on his own instead of try to get PB to do the testing of his systems for him.

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:A lie is an untruth meant to decive. To say something is a lie is to call the one who said it a lier.

Since the OP has failed to understand the full meaning of the English word 'lie' I understand how he can fail to understand the rest of what I have said.

Wrong.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie?s=t
s.

Quote from the above dictionary page link....

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;

If you want to be understood as saying that you are just meaning it is a falsehood then doing use the word "lie". This is because it is Issulting to the person being accused as lier.

That you used the most insulting, misleading and derogator way to say you believe what I said was untrue shows that you even refucse to consider that I can understand your viewpoint. Thus making you a <descriptive adverb> rude person and you need to consider that you might need to appologize for your rudeness.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What the OP has suggested for changes seams to me he should just write up his own RPG system and try it out on his own instead of try to get PB to do the testing of his systems for him.

They are suggested ideas.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Quote from the dictionary page link....

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;

It can be any of the three, and I made a point of picking the last one. Now either contribute or I email an Admin; or leave of your own volition.

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What the OP has suggested for changes seams to me he should just write up his own RPG system and try it out on his own instead of try to get PB to do the testing of his systems for him.

They are suggested ideas.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Quote from the dictionary page link....

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;

It can be any of the three, and I made a point of picking the last one. Now either contribute or I email an Admin; or leave of your own volition.

The prime meaning of a word is always listed first.

I already did Contribute. You just ignored it.

I've already reported you for you attack on me by calling me a lier.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The prime meaning of a word is always listed first.

I already did Contribute. You just ignored it.

I've already reported you for you attack on me by calling me a lier.

Then as you have nothing more to say, you can leave the thread can't you?

[sarcasm ] Yes Mr Trump, very well Mr Trump.[/sarcasm]

I have already requested a finality to this topic to the mods.

The word is liar, not lier. It's so embarassing to see someone play act at arguing semantics while they screw up the most basic stuff over and over, and over, for literal decades. It's also though, not thou, and should have, not should of.

As for your discussion post above, rogerd, I think there are some good ideas in it. I will note that PB frowns on conversions to other systems, so a 1:1 pairing of notions to those found in Age or M&M arguably ain't kosher. At the bottom of my post on the first page of the thread I mentioned applying point buy models after the fact to extant material, so as to have a more organized approach to already published material instead of rebuilding the wheel. I'll riff on that for a little bit.

As a base idea, I was thinking of the use of build stubs in being able to describe characters. A Tech Level 2/Education Level 4(Specialization:2)/Powers 12 (Learned Magic 12), for example, could describe a journeyman Palladium Fantasy Wizard, while a TL5/EL4(S:1)/Enhancement10(Intrinsic4/Gear6) would be the stub from a Rifts Japan Cyberoid piloting Light Power Armor, and a comic book style modern day flying brick might be a TL4/EL2/P15. This would allow at least a pretense of balance in a group, where if a Palladium Fantasy Mercenary falls into a rift and is meant to keep abreast with a party of Demigod Warlocks then there's at least a starting point for budgeting gene mods, skill softs, magic gear, wacky mounts, or whatever else. I imagine there would be some amount of geometric growth, such that perhaps a TL5/EL6(S3)/E10(G10) Rifts Operator in a customized hovertank might be expected to contribute roughly as much as a TL0/EL1/E16(I16) Neanderthal Shadowlord.

As a first stab at psionics:
1: Minor (2 powers from 1 discipline, low I.S.P., ability to use TW items)
2: Major (as depicted in books)
3: MAJOR (species like Horune and Simvan)
4: around the level of a Mystic with a good I.S.P. roll
5: some of the BTS 2 classes when near a X6 or above threat, Psi-Druid
6: around the Burster
8: a starting Mind Mage

Each rank in Education Level could equate to a few hundred points in skills, assuming one wanted to maintain a percentile system, with a penalty rank if skills otherwise unavailable to a given Technology Level are selected. This could go in either direction, such that a modern researcher trying to understand antediluvian magicoscience only found in a TL1 dimension would be penalized in much the same way as someone trying to reverse engineer a spaceship's workings from a wreckage.

Curbludgeon wrote:I will note that PB frowns on conversions to other systems, so a 1:1 pairing of notions to those found in Age or M&M arguably ain't kosher.

It was more for people to see where my head was at when drawing inspiration for what I was doing to be honest.
Why do you think I need to edit?

Curbludgeon wrote:At the bottom of my post on the first page of the thread I mentioned applying models after the fact to extant material, so as to have a more organized approach to already published material instead of rebuilding the wheel.

I saw that, and liked it a lot.
When I saw the number of percentiles I sat and thought that maybe assigning a level which could easily be converted in a percentage after the fact. It was just something I was tinkering with last night, and thought I would share for consumption.

Curbludgeon wrote:As a base idea, I was thinking of the use of build stubs in being able to describe characters. A Tech Level 2/Education Level 4(Specialization:2)/Powers 12 (Learned Magic 12), for example, could describe a journeyman Palladium Fantasy Wizard, while a TL5/EL4(S:1)/Enhancement10(Intrinsic4/Gear6) would be the stub from a Rifts Japan Cyberoid piloting Light Power Armor, and a comic book style modern day flying brick might be a TL4/EL2/P15.

This would allow at least a pretense of balance in a group, where if a Palladium Fantasy Mercenary falls into a rift and is meant to keep abreast with a party of Demigod Warlocks then there's at least a starting point for budgeting gene mods, skill softs, magic gear, wacky mounts, or whatever else. I imagine there would be some amount of geometric growth, such that perhaps a TL5/EL6(S3)/E10(G10) Rifts Operator in a customized hovertank might be expected to contribute roughly as much as a TL1/EL1/E16(I16) Neanderthal Shadowlord.

This is actually really, really interesting to be honest. I would presume that you have a kind of tech level table laid out to enable easy breakdown as to what fits into where? Using this would be a quick and easy fix as to where to place certain types of characters, and powers etc.

Curbludgeon wrote:As a first stab at psionics:
1: Minor (2 powers from 1 discipline, low I.S.P., ability to use TW items)
2: Major (as depicted in books)
3: MAJOR (species like Horune and Simvan)
4: around the level of a Mystic with a good I.S.P. roll
5: some of the BTS 2 classes when near a X6 or above threat, Psi-Druid
6: around the Burster
8: a starting Mind Mage

Although you are using the basic psychic minor and major stuff, how would you want to alter the powers?
As an aside I have always liked the mind mage class for some reason, it just seems to appeal to me.

Curbludgeon wrote:Each rank in Education Level could equate to a few hundred points in skills, assuming one wanted to maintain a percentile system, with a penalty rank if skills otherwise unavailable to a given Technology Level are selected. This could go in either direction, such that a modern researcher trying to understand antediluvian magicoscience only found in a TL1 dimension would be penalized in much the same way as someone trying to backwards engineer a spaceship's workings from a wreckage.

[/quote]

The only issue here is the admin of the points spent especially if you are looking at 300-400 per EL, that is potentially a lot of counting involved. Not a bad idea though.

Reading it all over....what you are proposing is not really "2nd ed" more akin to doing a metaphorical "Savage Rifts" treatment.

Which is fine if that is what you want.

What I have seen over al these years is people generally like the core of the Palladium mechanics. I know I do.

Also typically a 2nd ed is not so far removed from its predecessor to be a utterly and completely different animal. Not that no new editions are THAT different but most tend to take the predecessor and just "improve it" in some way.

DnD to 5e all hold over a number of elements from their predecessors for example. Pathfinder as well. Even WEG with SWd6 to SWd6 2e (2e being probably my absolute favourite rpg system though I always preferred the die capping system of scaling but that's me and that with some tweaks gleaned from the open d6 games could VERY easily do Rifts)

For me?

-Keep Chargen more or less as is with a couple of tweaks. One change is letting all attributes affect specified skills in some way. PP should give bonuses other than straight combat.....For example a 1st level PC with gymnastics and an IQ of 10 and a PP of 26 is actually WORSE than a 1st level PC with gymnastics and an IQ of 16 and PP of 10.

-Keep the classes though streamline where necessary. We really do NOT need a new "Soldier" or "Pilot" type occ in every damn book for every damn faction. Hell I came up with a CS OCC that eliminated the need for like 8 of the individual classes by just using a MOS set up... (Coalition Soldier, and I plan to make only 2 more CS classes Special Forces and Special Ops)

-Keep the basic premise of how combat works but clean it up. I did this with a simple change to how the melee round works as one tweak.

-fix spellcasting and lack of "energy" to draw from.

-streamline skills pairing them down and add a proper expert/master system for skills as well as specializations within the skills.

-change SDC-MDC from 100-1 to 10-1 already. 100-1 made sense in Robotech with super alien science/tech but if you apply ANY sort of logic at all to this there is no way humanity survives as it has with villages everywhere....the only bastions of humanity would in fact be fortresses where the military would have holed up during the cataclysm and grown from there. At least at 10-1 even a high powered SDC rifles/weapons enmasse would give MDC monsters cause for concern before continuing it's assault and would go a LOOOOONG way to explaining just why so may humans survived OUTSIDE of fortresses and fortified military based positions. I mean does anyone really have an issue a weapon like the venerable M2 Browning .50 cal doing the equivalent of 1d6md or it's civilian hunting rifle version the Barret Light fifty? Or say a Desert Eagle .50AE hand gun doing 1d4md? It would also allow certain character classes to make use of all that added HP and SDC like the standard Juicer. Who cares if it gets +1d4x100sdc if the 1d6md laser rifle can and will just vapourize him? Now granted you'd have to look at a system that will get rid of the stupid things like "enough 1d6md laser pistols can and will kill that 1000mdc robot if given enough time...." because even for a game as gonzo as Rifts a squad of infantry should be RUNNING from a Robot vehicle not saying "light 'em up". Today's infantry will run from a tank even if each trooper was carrying a man-portable AT weapon for crying out loud. Some form or reasonable "reality" should remain. Now I have system that in theory solves that issue but this thread is about more "generalities' than specifics.

To summarize....Palladium's rules, at their core, can and do work, and do so pretty well.....it's 30+ years of bloat and bolting on that has caused the multitude of issues people have grown to hate. Strip it back down as you would a car engine and integrate all the new "technologies" as you rebuild it instead of bolting it on like after market kits.

Curbludgeon wrote:The word is liar, not lier. It's so embarrassing to see someone play act at arguing semantics while they screw up the most basic stuff over and over, and over, for literal decades. It's also though, not thou, and should have, not should of.

Gee thank you for bringing this up. I forgot to use my spellcheck cause the OP Used the most insulting word to try to declare what he saw as something untrue. This intent that the OP was very much to call me a liar with his proclamation that my very true statement was a lie. And this reading of his post is further supported by the last line in that post....

So your statement is garbage.

The OP should know better. That when calling something a lie, that the word lie carries with it more meaning than just saying the something is untrue. So...

Far as I'm concerned anything he said after that was just spin to try to cover up his true intentions.


Since the RCB1 says that all of the PB Games use the same basic system. As such his calling out the RCB1 as evidence his AR VP all just proves his VP, is incompatible with what PB has said how they shaped their games. Since anyone can see the basic RPG system in the books (with a few exceptions) can know that PB did not lie when they said how they constructed their gamebooks.

His insulting rebuttal of my post just confirms that my understanding of his VP is correct. And anything he says to the contrary is just noise to try to deflect people from what they can see for themselves in his posts.
----
semantics: Trying to get people to actually say their house rules are their own house rule instead of presenting them as canon. That semantics? When someone is presenting their house rules as canon, then there needs to be someone to point that out.

Yes there are time when being too AR/CDO is counter productive. As evidenced by the OP.
-----------
I particularly do not care for the idea of PB recreating their gaming system on whole.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:The word is liar, not lier. It's so embarrassing to see someone play act at arguing semantics while they screw up the most basic stuff over and over, and over, for literal decades. It's also though, not thou, and should have, not should of.

Gee thank you for bringing this up. I forgot to use my spellcheck cause the OP Used the most insulting word to try to declare what he saw as something untrue. This intent that the OP was very much to call me a liar with his proclamation that my very true statement was a lie. And this reading of his post is further supported by the last line in that post....

So your statement is garbage.

Far as I'm concerned anything he said after that was just spin to try to cover up his true intentions.

EDIT: This includes anything he says after this post to try to spin things.

Since the RCB1 says that all of the PB Games use the same basic system. As such his calling out the RCB1 as evidence his AR VP all just proves his VP, is incompatible with what PB has said how they shaped their games. Since anyone can see the basic RPG system in the books (with a few exceptions) can know that PB did not lie when they said how they constructed their gamebooks.

His insulting rebuttal of my post just confirms that my understanding of his VP is correct. And anything he says to the contrary is just noise to try to deflect people from what they can see for themselves in his posts.
----
semantics: Trying to get people to actually say their house rules are their own house rule instead of presenting them as canon. That semantics? When someone is presenting their house rules as canon, then there needs to be someone to point that out.

Yes there are time when being too AR/CDO is counter productive. As evidenced by the OP.
-----------
I particularly do not care for the idea of PB recreating their gaming system on whole.

These two bits are the main crux of your post-

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:This intent that the OP was very much to call me a liar with his proclamation that my very true statement was a lie. Far as I'm concerned anything he said after that was just spin to try to cover up his true intentions.

EDIT: This includes anything he says after this post to try to spin things.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:His insulting rebuttal of my post just confirms that my understanding of his VP is correct. And anything he says to the contrary is just noise to try to deflect people from what they can see for themselves in his posts.

This is just flame bait and trolling, nothing more, nothing less.

Had a Though of how to explain to observers what the RCB1 stats is what PB that they used the same RPG system.

This will be in the form of an analogy.
--what PB said....is like saying they have an extended familly of games. which are all related to each other but are inherently have differences. Where they come from the same grand- or great grand parents.

What the OP is said things (remember this is an analogy) should be like the different games are clones of each other. And is complaining that they are not exactly alike.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Expand what you said into what you meant. (there is no meat on the bone you asked)

Right now the only PB games that don't have a 2nd ed are (going in PB store order) N&S , DR, NB, CE, Splicers, Mechanoids (and Systems Failure).

Technically, N&S has 2 editions - normal and revised
Mechanoids has a partial 2nd ed as well - the original stuff and the Rifts "partial" version

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The prime meaning of a word is always listed first.

I already did Contribute. You just ignored it.

I've already reported you for you attack on me by calling me a lier.

Then as you have nothing more to say, you can leave the thread can't you?

If you have a problem with the topic or a user in this thread, you do not need to continue viewing the thread. You can also "block" the user so that you do not continue seeing their posts.

This thread is being locked because of multiple people - and you know who you are - not behaving and apparently arguing just to argue.
You may start a new thread on this topic if you can behave. I would suggest that those of you who are bickering with each other - over ideas, semantics, etc... block or otherwise IGNORE each other.