Forums of the Megaverse®

So I've been wondering if the PFRPG would benefit from having a sort of RPG society similar to that of Pathfinder.

Would anyone here be interested in setting up something along those lines to make it happen?

the issue with this idea as a whole, and the reason why D&D / Pathfinder can do this is the strength, or rather the reliability, of the rule set. As a player, I know what rules I will be playing with in Pathfinder, and there's not a lot of room for variations from GM to GM. I can be pretty sure that the character sheet I use with one GM will be good with every GM I play with.

Palladium basically works on an opposing principle. There are -huge- sections of races and classes that live in this murky realm where some GM's would consider them fair game, while others consider them too good or disruptive. Meaning there would absolutely need to be a sort of social contract agreed upon as to which classes and races are okay and which are banned (and we're talking about a lot of them, PF has the advantage being smaller than Rifts). Then it comes to the issue that so much in Palladium is house ruled, between how to move in combat, and how some spells work to cut their power down from 'busted good'.

You mean on meetup.com or what?

Cinos wrote:the issue with this idea as a whole, and the reason why D&D / Pathfinder can do this is the strength, or rather the reliability, of the rule set. As a player, I know what rules I will be playing with in Pathfinder, and there's not a lot of room for variations from GM to GM. I can be pretty sure that the character sheet I use with one GM will be good with every GM I play with.

Palladium basically works on an opposing principle. There are -huge- sections of races and classes that live in this murky realm where some GM's would consider them fair game, while others consider them too good or disruptive. Meaning there would absolutely need to be a sort of social contract agreed upon as to which classes and races are okay and which are banned (and we're talking about a lot of them, PF has the advantage being smaller than Rifts). Then it comes to the issue that so much in Palladium is house ruled, between how to move in combat, and how some spells work to cut their power down from 'busted good'.

Only people that would worry about those are Nerfers. I pretty much allow anything and everything that is contained within the PF books. If you want to play a Gigantese wizard fine. If you want to place a Jeridu undead hunter fine. If you perfer a gnome bard with a skill at card games fine. I don't try to nerf any character or playing style. The truth is that some classes and races are stronger than others. It is stupid to try and put everyone on the same level.

I just never pull any punches in my GMing. If the book says a race or magic is considered evil and must be destroyed by the people of a town or village than I make sure players receive reactions that are correct from all NPCs.

Lukterran wrote:I don't try to nerf any character or playing style. The truth is that some classes and races are stronger than others. It is stupid to try and put everyone on the same level.

I don't try to put everyone at the same level, but I do try to allow the same amount of participation for people, and the combat system as is in second ed (first ed has less attacks) doesn't really allow for it, mages get 1 -2 spell actions a round, where the fighters get up to twelve (fleet feet is generally the first spell the fighters want cast on them) isn't really balanced for the wizards, as often they go I start casting and then the fight finishes, and having the wizard twiddle his thumbs for 1hr and 55 minutes of a 2hr combat isn't very fun for them, as all their actions are used quickly and they cant even speak back as they are spell casting.

We are talking about doing something similar through the MA program

Cinos wrote:the issue with this idea as a whole, and the reason why D&D / Pathfinder can do this is the strength, or rather the reliability, of the rule set. As a player, I know what rules I will be playing with in Pathfinder, and there's not a lot of room for variations from GM to GM. I can be pretty sure that the character sheet I use with one GM will be good with every GM I play with.

Palladium basically works on an opposing principle. There are -huge- sections of races and classes that live in this murky realm where some GM's would consider them fair game, while others consider them too good or disruptive. Meaning there would absolutely need to be a sort of social contract agreed upon as to which classes and races are okay and which are banned (and we're talking about a lot of them, PF has the advantage being smaller than Rifts). Then it comes to the issue that so much in Palladium is house ruled, between how to move in combat, and how some spells work to cut their power down from 'busted good'.

There are a few things that admittedly we will have to address. The variance of the rules is one thing. Another is what is considered a playable race/class is another.

My thoughts on this is that there are two approaches. First the rules can be hammered out via consensus of the community. So could race and class options. Another option would be to keep this less restrictive and defined than the other games. While a consensus on rulings should be attained, it could be possible to leave enough leeway for GMs to run the game for their groups using the house rules they have in play as of now.

I see no reason for one group to be forced into playing a way they don't enjoy as another group does enjoy a different style. So what we can do is set this up as a series of one off adventures.

GMs can run them for the groups they are in and report results. Each groups results will result in a vote for the overall story arch of the world.

For example lets say we run an adventure where a thief another rival in the same guild are vying for leadership. They turn to the adventures to try to get an advantage one way or another. The GMs run the game and the results get reported and that counts as that groups official vote. IE One guy won, it was a draw and the feud continues or the players thought that every thief should be brought to justice and both sides were offed.

So the players will have an effect in the world. (in addition to EXP and rewards from the GM as well.) This will leave the actual running of the game sessions to the GMs and the groups they currently are in. So players and GMs won't really have to make any changes to how they run the game. It's just the setting and perhaps a consensus on rulings.

pblackcrow wrote:You mean on meetup.com or what?

Well I wasn't thinking of being on meetup.com as people might be all over the country, but as a more of an associaion of gaming groups that play in a wold that is effected by the actions of the players. This can also give players who play in different groups a chance to discuss what they did in the same adventure. Kinda like the old D&D modules.

Raise your hand if you fell into the pit trap laid by the kobolds in the first cave on the right in the old Keep on the Borderlands adventure!

*Raises Hand*

I also died as the other players couldn't get me out and the trap reset with me in it. First bad experience splitting up the party. LOL

Lukterran wrote:
Only people that would worry about those are Nerfers. I pretty much allow anything and everything that is contained within the PF books. If you want to play a Gigantese wizard fine. If you want to place a Jeridu undead hunter fine. If you perfer a gnome bard with a skill at card games fine. I don't try to nerf any character or playing style. The truth is that some classes and races are stronger than others. It is stupid to try and put everyone on the same level.

I just never pull any punches in my GMing. If the book says a race or magic is considered evil and must be destroyed by the people of a town or village than I make sure players receive reactions that are correct from all NPCs.

As the game should be played. A giant approaching town should be alarming to the citizens and the town guard should show up to deal with the menace. Afterall they don't know the giant isn't there to loot and pillage the farms.

This is another reason why keeping it simple and a little free form will be a good thing. It allows for a variance of styles. But to keep things fair we can also denote on any adventure what it was designed for in the GM notes. Afterall an adventure designed for a party of gnomes is gonna be massively different than an adventure designed with dragons, angels, vampires and Jeridu in mind. So Timro vs The Land of the Damned mentality should come in.

One thing that should be done is to set up some sort of registry so that characters can be logged in and not keep doing he same adventure over and over again.

kiralon wrote:

Lukterran wrote:I don't try to nerf any character or playing style. The truth is that some classes and races are stronger than others. It is stupid to try and put everyone on the same level.

I don't try to put everyone at the same level, but I do try to allow the same amount of participation for people, and the combat system as is in second ed (first ed has less attacks) doesn't really allow for it, mages get 1 -2 spell actions a round, where the fighters get up to twelve (fleet feet is generally the first spell the fighters want cast on them) isn't really balanced for the wizards, as often they go I start casting and then the fight finishes, and having the wizard twiddle his thumbs for 1hr and 55 minutes of a 2hr combat isn't very fun for them, as all their actions are used quickly and they cant even speak back as they are spell casting.

This is again why we either need a consensus as to what should and should not be allowed or go free form and leave it up to the individual GMs who are running the game to opt to allow or disallow a spell/race/class/etc.

zyanitevp wrote:We are talking about doing something similar through the MA program

Well best of luck on what you are doing. No offense to you or any of the MA Ambassadors, but I really don't feel like dealing with what will just be an endless line to hook people into Rifts/HU/Robotech/Dead Reign or any of the other product lines that get a ton more support from PB. I'm looking for PFRPG and have no interest in dealing with the megaversal aspect of the other product lines just to get an occasional snippet here and there for PFRPG..

The goal here is to make something dedicated to the PFRPG. For fans/players of the PFRPG to enjoy.

URLeader Hobbes wrote:

zyanitevp wrote:We are talking about doing something similar through the MA program

Well best of luck on what you are doing. No offense to you or any of the MA Ambassadors, but I really don't feel like dealing with what will just be an endless line to hook people into Rifts/HU/Robotech/Dead Reign or any of the other product lines that get a ton more support from PB. I'm looking for PFRPG and have no interest in dealing with the megaversal aspect of the other product lines just to get an occasional snippet here and there for PFRPG..

The goal here is to make something dedicated to the PFRPG. For fans/players of the PFRPG to enjoy.

No offense taken. As a huge fan of fantasy, I also would like to organize a fantasy group, under the MA header, to run games, pushing more interest in the line, and hopefully pushing Palladium to release more for the line.

URLeader Hobbes wrote:

zyanitevp wrote:We are talking about doing something similar through the MA program

Well best of luck on what you are doing. No offense to you or any of the MA Ambassadors, but I really don't feel like dealing with what will just be an endless line to hook people into Rifts/HU/Robotech/Dead Reign or any of the other product lines that get a ton more support from PB. I'm looking for PFRPG and have no interest in dealing with the megaversal aspect of the other product lines just to get an occasional snippet here and there for PFRPG..

The goal here is to make something dedicated to the PFRPG. For fans/players of the PFRPG to enjoy.

I completely understand the point you're trying to make here and agree with it. Even though I've only been in 1 PF game, (TMNT/AtB/HU are my lines of choice) I had loads of fun playing a completely randomly rolled character (I was a Dwarvling Minstrel!).

While dimensional rifts exist within the framework of the PF world (and throughout each world (game line) of the megaverse if I understand things properly) allowing for the possibility of game crossovers (What will the Paladin make of my mutant Tiger hobo?!!); I support your decision to keep the Society "pure" for the PF line.

It would be nice though if adventures/modules designed by the society could be ran in other systems. My tiger hobo gets into more BTS themed trouble than any decent GM would put a non BTS pc through lol. In other words I likes me some pre-gen adventures. If I can run a different genre pc through it without too much issue, I likes it better.

zyanitevp wrote:No offense taken. As a huge fan of fantasy, I also would like to organize a fantasy group, under the MA header, to run games, pushing more interest in the line, and hopefully pushing Palladium to release more for the line.

No worries.. Either way it promotes the game we all enjoy.. The difference is that if someone shows up or asks to play a Cosmo Knight, Warrior of Valhalla that happens to be a Jeridu it will be a lot less likely to be "in" on PF Play than in in MA Play.

Hmm maybe we should come up with a better name than "Society"

Any suggestions??

PFRPG Cabal?

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I completely understand the point you're trying to make here and agree with it. Even though I've only been in 1 PF game, (TMNT/AtB/HU are my lines of choice) I had loads of fun playing a completely randomly rolled character (I was a Dwarvling Minstrel!).

While dimensional rifts exist within the framework of the PF world (and throughout each world (game line) of the megaverse if I understand things properly) allowing for the possibility of game crossovers (What will the Paladin make of my mutant Tiger hobo?!!); I support your decision to keep the Society "pure" for the PF line.

It would be nice though if adventures/modules designed by the society could be ran in other systems. My tiger hobo gets into more BTS themed trouble than any decent GM would put a non BTS pc through lol. In other words I likes me some pre-gen adventures. If I can run a different genre pc through it without too much issue, I likes it better.

Well theoretically any module could be adapted for another game line.. But my focus will be PFRPG. Now if your GM wants to run it then by all means. Enjoy!!!

URLeader Hobbes wrote:Well theoretically any module could be adapted for another game line.. But my focus will be PFRPG. Now if your GM wants to run it then by all means. Enjoy!!!

I follow what you're saying Hobbes. However, some modules are easier adapted than others.

Monster terrorizing a farming village can easily become Monster terrorizing a rural community or.. suburbs or small town.

Brave you way through the trap filled dungeon of the mad mage and his goblin horde to find the mystic gemstone that will awaken the sleeping Titan who is the only one able to defend the kingdom against the armies of doom! .... doesn't cross over so smoothly.

Know what I'm saying?

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:
I follow what you're saying Hobbes. However, some modules are easier adapted than others.

Monster terrorizing a farming village can easily become Monster terrorizing a rural community or.. suburbs or small town.

Brave you way through the trap filled dungeon of the mad mage and his goblin horde to find the mystic gemstone that will awaken the sleeping Titan who is the only one able to defend the kingdom against the armies of doom! .... doesn't cross over so smoothly.

Know what I'm saying?

Umm no.

Rifts = Brave your way through the enemy base of the evil Federation of Magic and the monster/demon hordes to find the scientist who will create the Titan Juicers that will be able to defend the (Insert name of whatever place your working for.)

HU = Brave your way thorough the secret base of the evil Dr. Madscientist and his henchmen to find the fragment of meteorite that can awaken the alien ship which will save the earth from certain doom.

Nightbane = Brave your way into the city in the Nightlands and take on the forces of the Ba'al to lcoate the lost relic that can give the Resistance a chance to win against the forces of Lord Morlock.

DR = Brave your way into NYC, batteling zombie hordes and the Hi Hats gang to recover pieces of a generator that will give the group of survivors a fighting chance in the harsh zombie apoclyapse.

Robotech = Brave your way through the enemy lines of the Zentradi and the invid to find the plans for the SDF 187 that will be able to defend the earth from alien hordes.


No I don't really see too much of a difference.. LOL

URLeader Hobbes wrote:No I don't really see too much of a difference.. LOL

Touche'

Random thoughts, based on various posts in the thread.
1) What if there is an "adventurers guild" that works as job getters for adventuring groups. This would be the behind the scenes GM grouping working it all.

2) Meta plot it, sort of. 10 different pieces of the magical orb of world-saving. Each group goes after a separate piece. If a group fails, someone else has to pick up the slack.

3) relating to #1, the individual GMs are the group's contact with the guild, so that whoever is doing the main setup isn't dealing with 100 adventurers, only 10 GMs

And done right, my above suggestions could work to make a full megaversal meta campaign

I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

Glistam wrote:I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

PF stand for Palladium Fantasy. Not pathfinder.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:

Glistam wrote:I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

PF stand for Palladium Fantasy. Not pathfinder.

The original post made a comment about setting up something similar to Pathfinder Society... so, the question wasn't out of place

My bad. Gilstam, my apologies

Glistam wrote:I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

In a nut shell it is "Organized Play."
Basic Premise: Players create a character for Society Play. Said character is legal for use in any sanctioned Society Adventure ran by a qualified sanctioned Society GM.
The world used by all Society members is a "living world" where each character belongs to a "faction" and has certain goals they try to achieve through the course of a season (typically 1 year). A number of adventure modules are released during the season which depending on the collated data of all Society reports (which factions attained their goals, outcome of the adventures, etc...) have lasting effects on the meta-plot of the "living world."

That is a bare bones description as I am not a PFS GM/PC I cannot get into any more in depth details on how it functions.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Glistam wrote:I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

In a nut shell it is "Organized Play."
Basic Premise: Players create a character for Society Play. Said character is legal for use in any sanctioned Society Adventure ran by a qualified sanctioned Society GM.
The world used by all Society members is a "living world" where each character belongs to a "faction" and has certain goals they try to achieve through the course of a season (typically 1 year). A number of adventure modules are released during the season which depending on the collated data of all Society reports (which factions attained their goals, outcome of the adventures, etc...) have lasting effects on the meta-plot of the "living world."

That is a bare bones description as I am not a PFS GM/PC I cannot get into any more in depth details on how it functions.

Ah, okay. Thank you. That's an interesting concept for just about any of Palladium Books' games, not just Palladium Fantasy.

I think the major obstacle to something like this is the old editions, outdated rules and the like. The society should nominate officers and those officers should make a clear line on what is legal and not. Someone should make clarifications on how the game works, in the interest of new players, so that there is a smaller possibility of things getting out of hand.

Though, the society could also be much more loose and depend on play groups to deal with their own issues. Though I think unified and group-defined rules could go a long way toward helping people agree on how things work. there are fewer systems i have seen insanly over-interperated rules than Palladium's.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:Random thoughts, based on various posts in the thread.
1) What if there is an "adventurers guild" that works as job getters for adventuring groups. This would be the behind the scenes GM grouping working it all.

2) Meta plot it, sort of. 10 different pieces of the magical orb of world-saving. Each group goes after a separate piece. If a group fails, someone else has to pick up the slack.

3) relating to #1, the individual GMs are the group's contact with the guild, so that whoever is doing the main setup isn't dealing with 100 adventurers, only 10 GMs

1) Hmm I always assumed it would be various NPCs providing the missions.. I'm not against a guild doing it.. Are there any examples of adventures guilds in any of the books? I'm drawing a blank.

2) Interesting and that might be worth looking at. The only downside is if one group can't play, or breaks up.. That could dwindle quickly into one or two groups hogging all the action. I like it though..

3) My thought was to organize it kinda like a league. Have gaming groups be recognized teams and each declares the results of each adventure that ultimately has a result on the overall setting, story lines, etc. NO way was I thinking of running a game for 100+ players.. LOL I don't think anyone has ever done that.. That would be some sort of world record.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Glistam wrote:I don't play play Pathfinder and I don't know anything about what their "RPG Society" is... Can someone actually describe what this is all about and what the goal is?

In a nut shell it is "Organized Play."
Basic Premise: Players create a character for Society Play. Said character is legal for use in any sanctioned Society Adventure ran by a qualified sanctioned Society GM.
The world used by all Society members is a "living world" where each character belongs to a "faction" and has certain goals they try to achieve through the course of a season (typically 1 year). A number of adventure modules are released during the season which depending on the collated data of all Society reports (which factions attained their goals, outcome of the adventures, etc...) have lasting effects on the meta-plot of the "living world."

That is a bare bones description as I am not a PFS GM/PC I cannot get into any more in depth details on how it functions.

Yeah that's basically it. Thats the idea..

Alrik Vas wrote:I think the major obstacle to something like this is the old editions, outdated rules and the like. The society should nominate officers and those officers should make a clear line on what is legal and not. Someone should make clarifications on how the game works, in the interest of new players, so that there is a smaller possibility of things getting out of hand.

Though, the society could also be much more loose and depend on play groups to deal with their own issues. Though I think unified and group-defined rules could go a long way toward helping people agree on how things work. there are fewer systems i have seen insanly over-interperated rules than Palladium's.

I think you really hit the nail right on the head with this. PFRPG does really leave a lot open for interpretation. I think getting a common set of agreed upon rules is gonna be tricky. One side might see it one way while another just the exact opposite..

It might be wise just to allow each recognized group to house rule things to allow everyone to play as they see fit. Then down the road if this gets big and we do an event/convention we will have had time to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of each rule and how it officially should be worked.

If you haven't before please chime in on the 10 questions for GMs and players thread.

URLeader Hobbes wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:I think the major obstacle to something like this is the old editions, outdated rules and the like. The society should nominate officers and those officers should make a clear line on what is legal and not. Someone should make clarifications on how the game works, in the interest of new players, so that there is a smaller possibility of things getting out of hand.

Though, the society could also be much more loose and depend on play groups to deal with their own issues. Though I think unified and group-defined rules could go a long way toward helping people agree on how things work. there are fewer systems i have seen insanly over-interperated rules than Palladium's.

I think you really hit the nail right on the head with this. PFRPG does really leave a lot open for interpretation. I think getting a common set of agreed upon rules is gonna be tricky. One side might see it one way while another just the exact opposite..

It might be wise just to allow each recognized group to house rule things to allow everyone to play as they see fit. Then down the road if this gets big and we do an event/convention we will have had time to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of each rule and how it officially should be worked.

If you haven't before please chime in on the 10 questions for GMs and players thread.

link?

URLeader Hobbes wrote:

Goliath Strongarm wrote:Random thoughts, based on various posts in the thread.
1) What if there is an "adventurers guild" that works as job getters for adventuring groups. This would be the behind the scenes GM grouping working it all.

2) Meta plot it, sort of. 10 different pieces of the magical orb of world-saving. Each group goes after a separate piece. If a group fails, someone else has to pick up the slack.

3) relating to #1, the individual GMs are the group's contact with the guild, so that whoever is doing the main setup isn't dealing with 100 adventurers, only 10 GMs

1) Hmm I always assumed it would be various NPCs providing the missions.. I'm not against a guild doing it.. Are there any examples of adventures guilds in any of the books? I'm drawing a blank.

When I started my last PF game, soldiers came to a tiny village that the PCs were in and gave people a choice of being drafted (for low pay) or becoming mercenaries (for higher pay). My players ate it up and a good chunk of the games ended up focused on jobs being offered by the local mercenaries' guild (and they totally ignored my meta-plot of a usurpation in the making, sigh). Many "adventuring" style plots can work with a mercenaries' guild if someone else dreams up sending you to that dark dungeon or into that crazy battle and offers pay for the PCs to do the leg work. I always figured that mercenaries' guilds were, well, mercenary, they would take anyone who could successfully do the work and make the client happy and coming back for more.

OK not for nothing guys but if you seriously want to do this, allowing any gm to run with whatever their own house rules are is just ASKING for trouble. Why? Because then there is NO even playing field for all players and GMs alike. If one GM runs magic by the book and another allow PPE channeling and yet another allows PPE channeling and and magic foci (PPE channeling and magic foci are from the Rifter) then those mages are not going to be compatible beyond there own in house game. And what about how XP is handed out. Some GMs give out more than others thus ,making it unfair to those who play with stingy GMs versus those who have more generous GMs.

This has to be done right if it is to be done at all. It has to be able to crosspolinate and allowing each "house" to use its own house rules will very much hamper that not to mention very much change the difficulty of adventures depending on the house rules being used.

I would suggest (actually Damian Magecraft suggested it in our private discussions of this thread but I completely concur) that a Cabal of sorts (or guild), made up of 4-6 respected and trustworthy individuals, be created to be Master GMs so to speak. These 4-6 people would layout what rules are acceptable so on and so forth.

If the various groups are not on a level playing field, and I guarantee that allowing each "house" to play by it's own houserules will make sure it is not a level playing field, then this will fail before it ever begins.

I'd rather not see it fail.

jaymz wrote:...allowing any gm to run with whatever their own house rules are is just ASKING for trouble...

I concur.

Agreed

agreed

jaymz wrote:OK not for nothing guys but if you seriously want to do this, allowing any gm to run with whatever their own house rules are is just ASKING for trouble. Why? Because then there is NO even playing field for all players and GMs alike. If one GM runs magic by the book and another allow PPE channeling and yet another allows PPE channeling and and magic foci (PPE channeling and magic foci are from the Rifter) then those mages are not going to be compatible beyond there own in house game. And what about how XP is handed out. Some GMs give out more than others thus ,making it unfair to those who play with stingy GMs versus those who have more generous GMs.

This has to be done right if it is to be done at all. It has to be able to crosspolinate and allowing each "house" to use its own house rules will very much hamper that not to mention very much change the difficulty of adventures depending on the house rules being used.

I would suggest (actually Damian Magecraft suggested it in our private discussions of this thread but I completely concur) that a Cabal of sorts (or guild), made up of 4-6 respected and trustworthy individuals, be created to be Master GMs so to speak. These 4-6 people would layout what rules are acceptable so on and so forth.

If the various groups are not on a level playing field, and I guarantee that allowing each "house" to play by it's own houserules will make sure it is not a level playing field, then this will fail before it ever begins.

I'd rather not see it fail.

I agree with all of this!

zyanitevp wrote:

jaymz wrote:OK not for nothing guys but if you seriously want to do this, allowing any gm to run with whatever their own house rules are is just ASKING for trouble. Why? Because then there is NO even playing field for all players and GMs alike. If one GM runs magic by the book and another allow PPE channeling and yet another allows PPE channeling and and magic foci (PPE channeling and magic foci are from the Rifter) then those mages are not going to be compatible beyond there own in house game. And what about how XP is handed out. Some GMs give out more than others thus ,making it unfair to those who play with stingy GMs versus those who have more generous GMs.

This has to be done right if it is to be done at all. It has to be able to crosspolinate and allowing each "house" to use its own house rules will very much hamper that not to mention very much change the difficulty of adventures depending on the house rules being used.

I would suggest (actually Damian Magecraft suggested it in our private discussions of this thread but I completely concur) that a Cabal of sorts (or guild), made up of 4-6 respected and trustworthy individuals, be created to be Master GMs so to speak. These 4-6 people would layout what rules are acceptable so on and so forth.

If the various groups are not on a level playing field, and I guarantee that allowing each "house" to play by it's own houserules will make sure it is not a level playing field, then this will fail before it ever begins.

I'd rather not see it fail.

I agree with all of this!

I agree are we moving forward with this? It is the most interesting topic on the board in a long while.

AZ_RUNE wrote:I agree are we moving forward with this? It is the most interesting topic on the board in a long while.

As far as I know, things are still moving. URLeader Hobbes is setting up a series of video chats on G+ to talk with people and get more ideas, there is a thread about it here, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=144555. Somebody else mentioned skype.

Goliath Strongarm is working on a private Facebook page to do video chats and encourage discussion there, pm him to get details.

I believe that a few MA's, zyanitevp and jaymz, are brewing something offical up. Not really sure though.

Actually at the moment I've been discussing things with Goliath Strongarm and Damian Magecraft separate from my being a Megaversal Ambassador

So I just got caught up on the council discussion (or what is serving as the council at the moment) and, rest assured, there is a lot of discussion going on. It's quite active.

jaymz wrote:Actually at the moment I've been discussing things with Goliath Strongarm and Damian Magecraft separate from my being a Megaversal Ambassador

Under the bus already.....
Before we even had a chance....

zyanitevp wrote:

jaymz wrote:Actually at the moment I've been discussing things with Goliath Strongarm and Damian Magecraft separate from my being a Megaversal Ambassador

Under the bus already.....
Before we even had a chance....

I don't see any reason why an individual G.M. couldn't still run their individual game as an M.A. or with M.A. support if they wanted to.

No under the bus going on Z.

I see no reason for this to not be discussed separately from the MA program. Thus I am discussing it separately from being an MA. I'm not even a fantasy guy but my opinion on things was solicited so I'm giving it.

I do want to ask why there is an apparent desire to put this under the umbrella of the MA program though. The goals of the two are, to me, quite different.

Just to add.

I personally have no intention if running games/campaigns as part of this guild. I an sure those involved likely expected that. As I've said I'm not a fantasy guy. The only time I'll run fantasy is as a demo game as an MA. My role as far as I'm concerned will only ever be advisory and MAYBE administratively.

I fully intend to be an MA as it pertains to demonstrating Palladiums games as best I can. That's why I rejoined the MA program in the first place.

All I am saying is that the Ma program has changed dramatically, and that if I could get involved with this we can actually get Palladium support.

And the MA program keeps changing, because they keep having issues. So, my response is thanks, but no thanks

Goliath Strongarm wrote:And the MA program keeps changing, because they keep having issues. So, my response is thanks, but no thanks

Yeah we are all set with the MA.

zyanitevp feel free to join in on the discussions as well, but collectively the Guild has decided it's not going to fall under the MA program. We prefer to remain separate.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:And the MA program keeps changing, because they keep having issues. So, my response is thanks, but no thanks

Please do not speak of something you know nothing about. We are not having issues. We are not changing anything except for one coordinator.