Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:A GM is always encouraged to add or subtract penalties/bonuses for circumstances.

The ineffible GM wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:A GM is always encouraged to add or subtract penalties/bonuses for circumstances.

I for one have never felt 'encouraged' by any of Palladium's writings to create bonuses or penalties based upon the circumstances of the game. I have frequently felt it very necessary, and felt it greatly improved the game to do so, however everything in the writings of Palladium has always given me the impression that as a GM I should be free, and creative, as long as I don't mess with the rules. Because according to Palladium, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules.

EPIC wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

EPIC wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

EPIC wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

EPIC wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Actually, you missed the argument entirely. You aren't being asked to pick between a rules heavy or rules light system. You're being told that you have to fix the rules as they exist. The problem being, if you have to go through and fix a bunch of rules, to the point where you'd be save time and effort just making up your own rules, why should you bother buying the product in the first place?

EPIC wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:well for one thing i fail to see this supposed break in the system...so no i didn't miss the point at all...there appears to be a belief that any one who claims to run a straight palladium system is immediately branded a liar and dismissed as a kook. I run a relatively House rules light Palladium game. i can count the total number of HRs i use on one hand...and guess what...only 1 is a response to an actual rule in game (the dreaded -10 rule? tossed it right out) the rest of my HRs are not "fixes" to a "broken" system but rules to facilitate my style of play. (seriously I wonder if those who claim the system is broken don't have a different play style?) The mechanics are designed for cinematic physics, If your wanting simulated real world physics then of course the rules are broken (the system wasn't designed to support that level of detail) (personally i find bogging down in the minutiae of reality a bit boring...i play games to escape reality not emulate it).

personally i don't think that reality should have anything to do with a game of fantasy and imagination. but verisimilitude definitely must be a part of the rule system for the game. PB has neither of these two things down very well i.m.o.

i have changed most of the rules so that skill percentages actually mean something rather than than just being an arbitrary number to roll against. i have taken out all the ridiculous redundancies that crop up all over the place. i have also streamlined combat so that it flows faster and makes more sense. i have removed MDC because there are too many things that are broken with MDC to list effectively here. all those silly little contradictions that crop up due to the poorly edited cut/paste style of writing have to be corrected. i won't even get started on how much i hate PB's horrendously bad habit of changing the rules without explanation and without correcting errata so they could be applied to what was previously taken as canon without having to scream "Holy Confusing Batman!"

i wouldn't say that house rules are restricted to wanting a style of play, i would say that it's more of a desperate need for functionality. but i digress.

a ±3 bonus to strike/parry/dodge seems appropriate for prone characters vs. standing characters.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

EPIC wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Actually, you missed the argument entirely. You aren't being asked to pick between a rules heavy or rules light system. You're being told that you have to fix the rules as they exist. The problem being, if you have to go through and fix a bunch of rules, to the point where you'd be save time and effort just making up your own rules, why should you bother buying the product in the first place?

Shadow_otm wrote:

i won't even get started on how much i hate PB's horrendously bad habit of changing the rules without explanation and without correcting errata so they could be applied to what was previously taken as canon without having to scream "Holy Confusing Batman!

And we all know, D20 never ever changed their rules, did they?