Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:07 pm**

I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game, but most of that flak comes from a half dozen or so forum members, so I thought I'd start a poll to try to get a better feeling for how the forum as a whole views things.

I've always viewed the rules as a way of approximating how things work in the setting rather than describing in absolute terms how the setting works. As such, I quite happily change or ignore rules whenever I think they are overly simplistic or misguided. Or if they produce results inconsistent with my intentions for the setting.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:23 pm**

100% setting quality for me. The rules should support the enjoyment, not restrict it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:30 pm**

The game is like a house. The rules are the frame and the walls and such, but the setting are the decor, furniture, and nick nacks that fill a house and makes it inviting. That being said, I feel that it's split 65%/35% setting to rules.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:26 pm**

Definitely setting quality, the rules aren't carved in stone from God to obey without question but guidelines for how to run things, if a rule or rules are interfering with how a group is playing so that they're harming the enjoyment of it then the rules need amended or removed (depending on the rule) so as to improve the game's enjoyment.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:51 pm**

Some of the best things/times in the game come from the GM "bending"

'The Rules'.

1st thing is the game fun? if yes the quit complaining. :ok:

If the GM keeps the what rules he is using consistent within her game through-out a campaign, then that is good for the players. Along with the GM letting the players know what rules have been changed.

EDIT: they are both equally important.....but they not really only 60% important.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:23 pm**

Neither, its a trick question/false dichotomy.

House rules are well and good (and often necessary) however they do not preclude the setting. Especially when discussing things like a game its important to have a common basis for discussion to talk from.

I suspect that the 'flak' of which you speak is because of the attitude expressed in your tag line.
When the initial stance of a discussion is that the other party is wrong and not only has nothing to say but needs to adopt your view... then any discussion is likely going to be rather short and bitter.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:35 pm**

I'm not quite sure which option I need to pick for the pole, but I do have an answer; the setting is important, but so are the rules.

However, the rules should be an automatic thing; a background item that simply dictates what happens when someone does X.

People should not be thinking about them for anything other than as an in-game consistency, "when I jump out of a plane, I fall" kind of thing.

This is important because players' actions, as well as the GM's should always be deliberate and not accidental. If the players do not know something about how a thing will react, they shouldn't "go to the books", they should be experimenting within the setting.

What this means is that I see them as equally important - not 50/50 but 100%/100%. The rules should be keeping people in the setting as much as the setting should be showing people the rules.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:55 pm**

eliakon wrote:Neither, its a trick question/false dichotomy.

House rules are well and good (and often necessary) however they do not preclude the setting. Especially when discussing things like a game its important to have a common basis for discussion to talk from.

I suspect that the 'flak' of which you speak is because of the attitude expressed in your tag line.
When the initial stance of a discussion is that the other party is wrong and not only has nothing to say but needs to adopt your view... then any discussion is likely going to be rather short and bitter.

That's not even remotely what's expressed in his tagline, nor is it a trick question it simply asks which you consider more important since you're going to give more weight to one than the other.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:04 pm**

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:Neither, its a trick question/false dichotomy.

House rules are well and good (and often necessary) however they do not preclude the setting. Especially when discussing things like a game its important to have a common basis for discussion to talk from.

I suspect that the 'flak' of which you speak is because of the attitude expressed in your tag line.
When the initial stance of a discussion is that the other party is wrong and not only has nothing to say but needs to adopt your view... then any discussion is likely going to be rather short and bitter.

That's not even remotely what's expressed in his tagline, nor is it a trick question it simply asks which you consider more important since you're going to give more weight to one than the other.

It is a trick question/false dichotomy. It sets two non-opposing non-exclusive positions up and then asks which one is 'better'.

I view the statement that one can presuppose that one's views are superior to the books and are able to 'correct them' and that they are the only valid argument to be exactly what I said.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:25 pm**

I've added more options. Unfortunately, it reset the poll so everyone's votes were lost. I didn't realize that would happen and I apologize.

Eliakon, it's not a false dichotomy. It's not even a dichotomy. You can value both. Or neither. The poll is simply asking which you value more.

If you can't pick, that's fine. Perhaps one of the new options will be more to your liking.

Posted: **Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:48 pm**

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:Neither, its a trick question/false dichotomy.

House rules are well and good (and often necessary) however they do not preclude the setting. Especially when discussing things like a game its important to have a common basis for discussion to talk from.

I suspect that the 'flak' of which you speak is because of the attitude expressed in your tag line.
When the initial stance of a discussion is that the other party is wrong and not only has nothing to say but needs to adopt your view... then any discussion is likely going to be rather short and bitter.

That's not even remotely what's expressed in his tagline, nor is it a trick question it simply asks which you consider more important since you're going to give more weight to one than the other.

I think he's talking about the second statement in my signature (or whatever the forum calls it):

"If Y is demonstrably false, then any argument of the form "Book X says Y, therefore Z" can only be valid if Z is "Y should be crossed out and corrected thusly...""

It's a fair criticism given the topic of the thread. If I can demonstrate that what someone says is wrong, then there's very little they can do to convince me to accept it. Similarly, if they try to advance any claims using the demonstrably false claim as supporting evidence, I will not accept it unless other supporting evidence is provided. I make no apologies for this. It is the basis of critical thinking and good science.

However, I'm totally willing to discuss things that I don't currently accept because sometimes upon examination it turns out that if I accept it (and reject or adjust the things previously accepted that it contradicts), I can improve my version of the setting in some meaningful way. Again, I make no apologies for this. Creating a compelling setting is an iterative process and often I find that something that initially seemed like a good idea becomes an obstacle to something that I decide is an even better idea.

That's just how it works sometimes. I write code and design systems exactly the same way in my day job. If a previously useful assumption becomes too limiting, it gets removed or replaced with something that allows for the desired behavior.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:11 am**

I remember Kevin talking about a high flying bomber that was purposed in Triax 2. There was nothing mechanically unsound about the bomber, none of the rules should prevent it ... however it would undermine the NGR vs Gargoyle war so it had to be scrapped.

If in game I were playing a Triax engineer who suggested adding a bomb bay to the XM-288 supersonic transport and that we could win the war in a week and the answer was "No this setting is about giant mechs fighting giant monsters" I'd be a bit upset. I wouldn't want my GM to much with the mechanics (umm ... big bombs do less damage? or forests block nukes maybe?) but at the same time I couldn't have been the first engineer with that idea right? Plus "Giant mechs fighting giant monsters" is a lot cooler than "Giant monsters being bombed out of existence from 80,000 feet in the air". I don't want to put all my power armor & robot vehicle pilots out of a job.

Since I neither want to change the rules or change the setting ... I'm going with divine intervention. The setting isn't important, the rules aren't important ... the players and their fun, that's all that is important. Both the rules and the setting need to support our fun.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:37 am**

There is only one thing that is important.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:21 am**

Incriptus wrote:I remember Kevin talking about a high flying bomber that was purposed in Triax 2. There was nothing mechanically unsound about the bomber, none of the rules should prevent it ... however it would undermine the NGR vs Gargoyle war so it had to be scrapped.

If in game I were playing a Triax engineer who suggested adding a bomb bay to the XM-288 supersonic transport and that we could win the war in a week and the answer was "No this setting is about giant mechs fighting giant monsters" I'd be a bit upset. I wouldn't want my GM to much with the mechanics (umm ... big bombs do less damage? or forests block nukes maybe?) but at the same time I couldn't have been the first engineer with that idea right? Plus "Giant mechs fighting giant monsters" is a lot cooler than "Giant monsters being bombed out of existence from 80,000 feet in the air". I don't want to put all my power armor & robot vehicle pilots out of a job.

Since I neither want to change the rules or change the setting ... I'm going with divine intervention. The setting isn't important, the rules aren't important ... the players and their fun, that's all that is important. Both the rules and the setting need to support our fun.

This is a great point for sense vs setting. Though remember the question isn't what is best for the game. It's what is more important for your game.

Personally, in my rifts, the NGR had a bombing campaign, until the gargoyles suddenly had a very tight air defense provided by a splugorth warlord. Couple that with the gargoyles strategy of attacking air bases rather than fighting units while they're flying...it puts the humans in the proper place of despair for the setting without making them dumb.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:30 pm**

Incriptus wrote:I remember Kevin talking about a high flying bomber that was purposed in Triax 2. There was nothing mechanically unsound about the bomber, none of the rules should prevent it ... however it would undermine the NGR vs Gargoyle war so it had to be scrapped.

If in game I were playing a Triax engineer who suggested adding a bomb bay to the XM-288 supersonic transport and that we could win the war in a week and the answer was "No this setting is about giant mechs fighting giant monsters" I'd be a bit upset. I wouldn't want my GM to much with the mechanics (umm ... big bombs do less damage? or forests block nukes maybe?) but at the same time I couldn't have been the first engineer with that idea right? Plus "Giant mechs fighting giant monsters" is a lot cooler than "Giant monsters being bombed out of existence from 80,000 feet in the air". I don't want to put all my power armor & robot vehicle pilots out of a job.

Since I neither want to change the rules or change the setting ... I'm going with divine intervention. The setting isn't important, the rules aren't important ... the players and their fun, that's all that is important. Both the rules and the setting need to support our fun.

How would a bomber undermine the war? Also there was a bomber introduced in Rifts: Mercenaries if memory serves from Goldenage Weaponsmiths so not like there aren't other examples of bombers around.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:15 pm**

An exciting and memorable game trumps everything. I try to leave as much consistent with the printed material as I can so players that have read it will get what they expect. I create handouts that explain anything I've added or changed for the players' easy reference too. I get very few complaints in general.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:23 pm**

Nightmask, full bomber squadrons would make short work of any infrastructure the gargoyles have, and their rookeries would be more vulnerable than they are now.

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:06 pm**

flatline wrote:I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game, but most of that flak comes from a half dozen or so forum members, so I thought I'd start a poll to try to get a better feeling for how the forum as a whole views things.

I've always viewed the rules as a way of approximating how things work in the setting rather than describing in absolute terms how the setting works. As such, I quite happily change or ignore rules whenever I think they are overly simplistic or misguided. Or if they produce results inconsistent with my intentions for the setting.

Honestly, I find this is more a problem of framing rather than a problem of which is more important. or rather, I've come to notice during my time on these forums that there are really two entirely seperate kinds of debates going on, the the problem is most posters don't seem aware of it unless the OP takes great pains to call it out (and then not even always).

Essentially I find it easiest to determine if a debate falls into one of two catagories. a discussion to figure out what the rules are, and a discussion of which rules are best to use. it gets murky in palladium because contradictory or unclear rules sometimes leads to situations where both sides think they are correct on what the rules actually say.

issues of the type you crop up happen when you engage in people who are only trying to figure out "what the rules are". this is actually irrelevent to "do I want to use these rules".

Oftentimes I will embark on a discussion to better understand the rules. in general I pay for a game system because I don't want to do more houseruling than necessary, because making rules is something I want to pay other people to do for me.

that said, I won't hesitate to change a rule if it contradicts what I want to do in my game.

tl:dr - The question is simply wrong, flatline. which is more important depends entirely on what you are currently discussing. your ideas of what the rules should do is irrelevent if it's a case of "I think the rules are fine, I just want to know which interpreation is correct". If anything it actually detracts from the discussion. (this also means that once you do determine what the actual book rules are, you can then segway into the other discussion of what rules /should/ be). at the same time, if the rules don't fit what you want to do, then you're not having fun and something has to give.

the correct question is to asertain which discussion you are walking into and tailor your responses accordingly. I find it best to first determine what the rules DO say, and then have the entirely seperate discussion of weather or not you should USE those rules. The debate about charging e-clips had people arguing what the rules DO say with those arguing with what the rules SHOULD say, and neither side is happy. until both sides are in agreement of what the rules DO say, then discussing what they should say generally leads only to arguments and confusion.

It's all about context. there is no hard "this is more important".

Posted: **Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:47 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
flatline wrote:I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game, but most of that flak comes from a half dozen or so forum members, so I thought I'd start a poll to try to get a better feeling for how the forum as a whole views things.

I've always viewed the rules as a way of approximating how things work in the setting rather than describing in absolute terms how the setting works. As such, I quite happily change or ignore rules whenever I think they are overly simplistic or misguided. Or if they produce results inconsistent with my intentions for the setting.

Honestly, I find this is more a problem of framing rather than a problem of which is more important. or rather, I've come to notice during my time on these forums that there are really two entirely seperate kinds of debates going on, the the problem is most posters don't seem aware of it unless the OP takes great pains to call it out (and then not even always).

Essentially I find it easiest to determine if a debate falls into one of two catagories. a discussion to figure out what the rules are, and a discussion of which rules are best to use. it gets murky in palladium because contradictory or unclear rules sometimes leads to situations where both sides think they are correct on what the rules actually say.

issues of the type you crop up happen when you engage in people who are only trying to figure out "what the rules are". this is actually irrelevent to "do I want to use these rules".

Oftentimes I will embark on a discussion to better understand the rules. in general I pay for a game system because I don't want to do more houseruling than necessary, because making rules is something I want to pay other people to do for me.

that said, I won't hesitate to change a rule if it contradicts what I want to do in my game.

tl:dr - The question is simply wrong, flatline. which is more important depends entirely on what you are currently discussing. your ideas of what the rules should do is irrelevent if it's a case of "I think the rules are fine, I just want to know which interpreation is correct". If anything it actually detracts from the discussion. (this also means that once you do determine what the actual book rules are, you can then segway into the other discussion of what rules /should/ be). at the same time, if the rules don't fit what you want to do, then you're not having fun and something has to give.

the correct question is to asertain which discussion you are walking into and tailor your responses accordingly. I find it best to first determine what the rules DO say, and then have the entirely seperate discussion of weather or not you should USE those rules. The debate about charging e-clips had people arguing what the rules DO say with those arguing with what the rules SHOULD say, and neither side is happy. until both sides are in agreement of what the rules DO say, then discussing what they should say generally leads only to arguments and confusion.

It's all about context. there is no hard "this is more important".

Very nicely said. Put me down for agreeing with Nekira :ok:

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:01 am**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
flatline wrote:I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game, but most of that flak comes from a half dozen or so forum members, so I thought I'd start a poll to try to get a better feeling for how the forum as a whole views things.

I've always viewed the rules as a way of approximating how things work in the setting rather than describing in absolute terms how the setting works. As such, I quite happily change or ignore rules whenever I think they are overly simplistic or misguided. Or if they produce results inconsistent with my intentions for the setting.

Honestly, I find this is more a problem of framing rather than a problem of which is more important. or rather, I've come to notice during my time on these forums that there are really two entirely seperate kinds of debates going on, the the problem is most posters don't seem aware of it unless the OP takes great pains to call it out (and then not even always).

Essentially I find it easiest to determine if a debate falls into one of two catagories. a discussion to figure out what the rules are, and a discussion of which rules are best to use. it gets murky in palladium because contradictory or unclear rules sometimes leads to situations where both sides think they are correct on what the rules actually say.

issues of the type you crop up happen when you engage in people who are only trying to figure out "what the rules are". this is actually irrelevent to "do I want to use these rules".

Oftentimes I will embark on a discussion to better understand the rules. in general I pay for a game system because I don't want to do more houseruling than necessary, because making rules is something I want to pay other people to do for me.

that said, I won't hesitate to change a rule if it contradicts what I want to do in my game.

tl:dr - The question is simply wrong, flatline. which is more important depends entirely on what you are currently discussing. your ideas of what the rules should do is irrelevent if it's a case of "I think the rules are fine, I just want to know which interpreation is correct". If anything it actually detracts from the discussion. (this also means that once you do determine what the actual book rules are, you can then segway into the other discussion of what rules /should/ be). at the same time, if the rules don't fit what you want to do, then you're not having fun and something has to give.

the correct question is to asertain which discussion you are walking into and tailor your responses accordingly. I find it best to first determine what the rules DO say, and then have the entirely seperate discussion of weather or not you should USE those rules. The debate about charging e-clips had people arguing what the rules DO say with those arguing with what the rules SHOULD say, and neither side is happy. until both sides are in agreement of what the rules DO say, then discussing what they should say generally leads only to arguments and confusion.

It's all about context. there is no hard "this is more important".

Thank you for your post. Excellent thoughts. However, I think you need to add a 3rd category: "what should happen if...". In this category, the OP isn't asking what the canon rules are, but instead they're asking what is the correct outcome of a particular type of scenario. It's this kind of post where my response is to explain how the actual laws of physics might be relevant to the outcome. This is the category where my posts typically generate hostile responses.

Now it's entirely possible that some folks interpret "what should happen if..." as a request for the canon rules that cover the described scenario (if rules exist), but if so, then they're responding to the question they think the OP asked rather than the question the OP actually asked. Maybe they're right and that's what the OP wanted, but without further clarification from the OP, there's no way to know that.

Even if the OP is asking about the canon rules, if the rules are viewed as a handy approximation of how the setting functions, then knowing how things really should work is still beneficial in that it gives a better context in how the rules should be used (or if the rules should be used at all). Hence the poll. If the majority of the forum sees the rules as the actual in-game laws that govern the setting, then knowing how the real world works is of no benefit. However, if that view isn't the strong majority, then those who give me flak are not actually doing the forum any favors.

After years of resisting, I've finally begun using my foe list so I won't see some of the flak anymore, but hostile posts are still damaging to the forums if it squelches discussion that forum members might otherwise want to participate in. Even if I, personally, don't see those posts anymore.

Again, thank you for your response. Your posts are always carefully thought out and well articulated. Perhaps I would take less flak if my posts were more like that

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:50 am**

flatline wrote:Again, thank you for your response. Your posts are always carefully thought out and well articulated. Perhaps I would take less flak if my posts were more like that

Suddenly i'm glad old posts got purged from the system. My eairly years are not archived to contradict this statement

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:32 am**

Alrik Vas wrote:Nightmask, full bomber squadrons would make short work of any infrastructure the gargoyles have, and their rookeries would be more vulnerable than they are now.

Cutting the bomber reasons sounds more cop out than anything.
War is never fair.
War is a never ending circle of cause and effect.
High level bombers being used causes need to do something about it.
The Gargoyles have allies, your telling me the Splugorth couldn't develop a counter against the bombers to sell to them.

Are rules important to our group? They need to fit with our group and the setting.
Rifts combat rules are a convoluted mess to us that will never be used.

People giving others flak for changing or disregarding rules? yet it has been stated many, many, many times that Kevin himself does that in every game he runs.
:roll:

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:17 am**

Alrik Vas wrote:Nightmask, full bomber squadrons would make short work of any infrastructure the gargoyles have, and their rookeries would be more vulnerable than they are now.

The early books repeatedly talked about how dangerous air travel was without ever explaining why or providing game mechanics to back it up. Given the absence of rules for it, aircraft fly with impunity unless the GM intervenes.

Over the years my groups experimented with different ideas to make things like high altitude bombers a risky proposition even if your enemies had no special defenses against them.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:05 am**

quality of the setting, hands down.
every time iv ever gotten a group together to play this game, and managed to convince new people to play it, it is my description of the setting that gets everyones attention, stimulates imagination, gets blood fired up, etc.
at no point in time did i ever get anyone to play stating that the game is littered with an imperfect rule set that causes debates, frustration, arguments and locked topics on its official forums.

also, if one of my players comes up with a very creative and cool way to handle a situation that just wreaks of awesomesauce, there is simply no way im going to punish that player with failure at the whim of a die roll. i love creativity and imagination far too much to do that to anyone.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:10 am**

flatline wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:Nightmask, full bomber squadrons would make short work of any infrastructure the gargoyles have, and their rookeries would be more vulnerable than they are now.

The early books repeatedly talked about how dangerous air travel was without ever explaining why or providing game mechanics to back it up. Given the absence of rules for it, aircraft fly with impunity unless the GM intervenes.

Over the years my groups experimented with different ideas to make things like high altitude bombers a risky proposition even if your enemies had no special defenses against them.

could beyond horrible atmospheric conditions be responsible for the danger? are sentient, bi-and quadrupedal life forms the only invaders from other dimensions? do we know exactly how all of these various forms of life affect an ecosystem? none of this in the books. but i like doing that too. rules, even a lack thereof, should not be a hindrance to imagination.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:44 am**

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
flatline wrote:I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game, but most of that flak comes from a half dozen or so forum members, so I thought I'd start a poll to try to get a better feeling for how the forum as a whole views things.

I've always viewed the rules as a way of approximating how things work in the setting rather than describing in absolute terms how the setting works. As such, I quite happily change or ignore rules whenever I think they are overly simplistic or misguided. Or if they produce results inconsistent with my intentions for the setting.

Honestly, I find this is more a problem of framing rather than a problem of which is more important. or rather, I've come to notice during my time on these forums that there are really two entirely seperate kinds of debates going on, the the problem is most posters don't seem aware of it unless the OP takes great pains to call it out (and then not even always).

Essentially I find it easiest to determine if a debate falls into one of two catagories. a discussion to figure out what the rules are, and a discussion of which rules are best to use. it gets murky in palladium because contradictory or unclear rules sometimes leads to situations where both sides think they are correct on what the rules actually say.

issues of the type you crop up happen when you engage in people who are only trying to figure out "what the rules are". this is actually irrelevent to "do I want to use these rules".

Oftentimes I will embark on a discussion to better understand the rules. in general I pay for a game system because I don't want to do more houseruling than necessary, because making rules is something I want to pay other people to do for me.

that said, I won't hesitate to change a rule if it contradicts what I want to do in my game.

tl:dr - The question is simply wrong, flatline. which is more important depends entirely on what you are currently discussing. your ideas of what the rules should do is irrelevent if it's a case of "I think the rules are fine, I just want to know which interpreation is correct". If anything it actually detracts from the discussion. (this also means that once you do determine what the actual book rules are, you can then segway into the other discussion of what rules /should/ be). at the same time, if the rules don't fit what you want to do, then you're not having fun and something has to give.

the correct question is to asertain which discussion you are walking into and tailor your responses accordingly. I find it best to first determine what the rules DO say, and then have the entirely seperate discussion of weather or not you should USE those rules. The debate about charging e-clips had people arguing what the rules DO say with those arguing with what the rules SHOULD say, and neither side is happy. until both sides are in agreement of what the rules DO say, then discussing what they should say generally leads only to arguments and confusion.

It's all about context. there is no hard "this is more important".

Very nicely said. Put me down for agreeing with Nekira

I'd like to but then I'd get in trouble for trolling.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:00 pm**

I like how everyone skipped the part where I actually explained how bombers don't ruin the war if you think about it...I was only explaining what the thought on bombing runs was and how it could destabilize everything.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:24 pm**

Alrik Vas wrote:I like how everyone skipped the part where I actually explained how bombers don't ruin the war if you think about it...I was only explaining what the thought on bombing runs was and how it could destabilize everything.

Nobody skipped it, just explaining on how dumb that thought on bombing runs destabilizing everything sounds.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:43 pm**

Ah, since you offered the same situation as I did (splugorth helping with air defense) without agreement, and instead in reply to what I said after, I wrongly assumed it was skipped over.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:33 pm**

Quality of setting, sanctity of rulings, not rules.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:00 pm**

Mark Hall wrote:Quality of setting, sanctity of rulings, not rules.

I certainly agree with that. Rulings need to be consistent so that the players can make plans.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:40 pm**

flatline wrote:
Mark Hall wrote:Quality of setting, sanctity of rulings, not rules.

I certainly agree with that. Rulings need to be consistent so that the players can make plans.

If you make an exception, there should be an articulatable reason why.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:23 pm**

Mark Hall wrote:
flatline wrote:
Mark Hall wrote:Quality of setting, sanctity of rulings, not rules.

I certainly agree with that. Rulings need to be consistent so that the players can make plans.

If you make an exception, there should be an articulatable reason why.

As one of my favorite GMs would say "because I know something you don't know". And we accepted that. It usually made sense a little later, but not always.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:28 pm**

Trust is important in storytelling, which is essentially what a good campaign is. If the players trust the GM, and the GM can move things without breaking that trust, you have a really fun game where no one has to look over their shoulder or feel insecure about their character.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:31 am**

flatline wrote:
Mark Hall wrote:
flatline wrote:
Mark Hall wrote:Quality of setting, sanctity of rulings, not rules.

I certainly agree with that. Rulings need to be consistent so that the players can make plans.

If you make an exception, there should be an articulatable reason why.

As one of my favorite GMs would say "because I know something you don't know". And we accepted that. It usually made sense a little later, but not always.

Just because the GM doesn't TELL you the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one. But she should, if appropriate, be able to say what it is.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:04 pm**

The Beast wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:Very nicely said. Put me down for agreeing with Nekira

I'd like to but then I'd get in trouble for trolling.

I don't think you'd get in that much trouble, you were baited into it afterall :lol:

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:10 pm**

flatline wrote:I take a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules in order to protect or improve the setting of my game ...

Greetings and Salutations. Short version is that Nekira Sudacne said a lot of good stuff that I agree with. Now for the longer version. I didn't vote in the poll, because I feel my answer to the question wouldn't give a realistic reflection to what I feel the question is actually in regards to. However, to answer ...

1: The actual question. In the games I run, I tend to focus on the story first. We keep the rules as our framework, and they're important. I actually do tend to play mostly by the rules, but will often bend them or find loopholes for the sake of realism logic or flat out ignore them for better fun ("Okay, that shouldn't work by the rules but ... [bleep] it! That's clever and [bleep]in' awesome, so sure, you can do that."). Now don't get me wrong. This is not done for railroading or protecting my favorite NPC or screw the player characters, but helps flow with the player characters while keeping a more living world. Not sure I explained that right.

However, in the games I play in, such as the D&D group I'm in (not a Palladium game, I know, but as it's a story/rules thing, I'm using it anyways), the game seems to focus more on rules, even when it doesn't make logical sense. Sometimes logic must be discarded for the sake of balanced and consistent rules, and hey, I'm okay with that (within reason). There's definitely story there, but I also do think we're more closely forced to work within the rules. I suppose either way too strongly would probably make a dull game. But which side the scale tips isn't a huge issue for me either.

2: The actual problem (as I see it). Getting "a lot of flak here on the forums for changing or disregarding the rules" isn't usually the issue of house rules in and of themselves. Many people use house rules. However, on these forums, it's often best to use the Rules As Written (RAW) because it's a common ground, on the forums of this particular game company, asking a question about how to play a particular game. That's why, as an individual, I tend to respond to questions by the book, as opposed to by what I feel or think personally. I'll sometimes add my opinion on things as well, and when I do I try to clearly state it's only my personal opinion. This leads into my next point.

A lot of this is about presentation and clarity. First, it helps if the Original Post (OP) clarifies if they're looking for RAW or House Rules. This helps those responding answer appropriately. Even if they do specify, it helps to clarify which you're using. Lines such as RAW, by the book, canon, official, etc. help to show one side. Meanwhile terms such as house rules and in my games help show the other side. I personally recommend using the term "house rules" as it's a clearest phrase I can think of. Vague terms such as "I think" and then stating a rule isn't as clear as some of us wish. Do you think that's how the RAW work, or you think that's how the rules SHOULD work even though they don't. Basically this allows others to interpret what you meant, and that leads to problems.

Stating both RAW and House Rules can work really well too. So if someone is asking how far you can jump in game, an answer like ...

"RAW: Jumping rules can be found .... [List of books and pages.]

House Rule: I don't really like the official jumping rules, so my group uses these rules. [State house rule.]"

Or ...

"[Poster name] already listed the official rules above, but these are my house rules that I think work better ..."

People might disagree with the house rule for logistical reasons (they don't feel they're realistic or too number crunchy, etc.), and some people will still just be jerks (you can't win them all), but would probably eliminate a fair bit of grief. Once people know you comprehend the RAW and don't feel you're trying to pass off house rules as canon, their need to argue about RAW decreases. Also, it's the most thorough of answers so those reading can make an informed decision.

Anyways, hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:27 pm**

Prysus has a valid point. There are some who have post counts that number in the thousands who make posts about rules with their house rules, as though all who read their posts should know what they are. Not necessarily you Flatline, but I have seen it somewhat regularly.

Whether this is a language barrier or stupidity or just plain trolling from those individuals, it complicates rules discussions and generates heated responses.

As to the poll, rules are secondary in my games. If there is a rule, we will follow it, unless we come up with something that works better for us. If there isn't, we make one up. The important thing is the story flowing and the humans behind the characters having fun.

Posted: **Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:12 pm**

House rules are great as long as they're consistent and clearly explained to the characters. A fudged or poorly drawn-out setting gives the players nothing to care about or latch onto. They might as well be walking around in a video game.

Posted: **Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:34 pm**

MDC wrote:House rules are great as long as they're consistent and clearly explained to the characters. A fudged or poorly drawn-out setting gives the players nothing to care about or latch onto. They might as well be walking around in a video game.

That's exactly what we thought about the canon rules. It felt like a video game with weird in-game physics that were hard to predict and simply had to be memorized. The point of many of our house rules was specifically to address that issue.

Forums of the Megaverse®

What's more important to your group?

What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?

Re: What's more important to your group?