Preventive Meta-Gaming

[Nekira Sudacne]

Regarding your on-the-road playstyle though, surely your group still stops to camp out and all that right? Couldn't a golem in a tree ready to pounce down on those who disturb your sleep be helpful?

Golems tend to be bad pouncers due to their slow speed and huge weight--even a 6' golem would need a very big, old tree to support their weight, also we usually just have NPC's watching the goings on while taking shifts for watch if needed. it's a case of "Yes, A golem COULD do that--but we already have better options"

They could also be used to punch down trees to gather firewood so you don't need to waste vibro-blade batteries (however long those last) and can keep your rifles at the ready.

Or just, ya know, buy an axe for 6 credits

Or, simply to avoid fatigue, if you lack a horse or a vehicle a zombie could carry you around, saving your legs. Also useful if someone blows off your legs.

That's what friends are for!

Their high strength is very useful in carting around booty. It's also not really a target for theft the way a group's APC would be since a stolen golem isn't really going to be of any value, more of a liability.

Our groups tend to forget to loot most of the time...

however, we tend to just use dimensional pockets and envelopes for all our needs in that field.

Like a magi's automaton couldn't you command a golem to "carry me away from danger if I'm knocked out" in case someone uses a sleep/stun spell on you?

They also serve in a tank roll to draw attacks from HTH monsters like Fury Beetles to prevent expensive MDC armor repairs needing to be done on the group.

again--disabled/KOed characters already have friends to carry them off, so golems are not needed.

As far as tank roles: they are simply not very GOOD tanks for our level of play. Things like fury beetles just are not concerns, nor are most typical random encounters--a charging fury beetle has basically no chance of getting close enough to do real damage. Force feilds and magical armor are much more useful than golems.

Or you know, one of the characters will have an actual Tank or power armor to do that

[Axelmania]

Golems tend to be bad pouncers due to their slow speed and huge weight--even a 6' golem would need a very big, old tree to support their weight,

I don't think your Spd would affect the speed you fall out of a tree at... and where have we ever been told a golem's weight? Sure, iron is heavy, but who's to say they're solid iron? What if it's a hollow iron golem? They have the same amount of magical MDC regardless of height (even though it can change by a factor of 3) so it will be the same regardless of thickness.

also we usually just have NPC's watching the goings on while taking shifts for watch if needed. it's a case of "Yes, A golem COULD do that--but we already have better options"

More eyes is always useful, particularly as you mentioned the loyalty aspect, in case your 2 watchers decide to get drunk and play cards instead of pay attention.

They could also be used to punch down trees to gather firewood so you don't need to waste vibro-blade batteries (however long those last) and can keep your rifles at the ready.

Or just, ya know, buy an axe for 6 credits

again--disabled/KOed characters already have friends to carry them off, so golems are not needed.

This all seems a matter of just how compromised the party is by dangers. A golem could always come in handy if you faced a big enough threat. The friends who could carry you off might be in the middle of parrying 3 Gargoyles.

Or you know, one of the characters will have an actual Tank or power armor to do that

and unlimited wealth to repair them

[Killer Cyborg]

We do have a picture of a golem... but golems could range from 6 to 18 feet in the main book. The one in the picture looks in the middle around 12 feet based on the size of the human he's reaching for. Golems don't necessarily have to have 2 fingers and 1 thumb like the one in the picture either. It should have been originally possible to sculpt a human-size golem with human-proportionate hands, and in that case, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from using hand-held weapons.

The only requirements we're given as far as physical body construction is that the mage "sculpts a Golem (humanoid shape) from clay)."
Other than that, there are no restrictions. It could look as human or inhuman as the mage wants, within his/her ability to sculpt.
I'd imagine that the main reason so many golems in pictures look crude is simply because:
a) It's fashion. Mages want their constructs to have a certain look.
b) Many mages don't have any Sculpting skill.

Having a hand made of stone/iron could also make gripping a weapon sort of awkward, since there's no give,

If there's no give, how does the stone creature move?

If you are some 5 ft tall mage with an 18 ft tall golem, they may be viewed as the primary threat. A missile might be aimed at them, and even if it is destroyed, it would regenerate the next day unless your enemy had the proper lore skills to know to remove the heart.

Yup.

It's hard to think of situations where a mage would even bother with a non-diamond and/or non-iron golem.

Any situation where a mage can't afford a diamond (or where it simply wasn't available), and/or any situation where the mage is unable to appropriately sculpt iron (and/or it is unavailable).

and are slower than the average person.

Yup. That's a definite downside.

True... but is there anything preventing a golem from using a Talisman of (L5) Superhuman Speed (30mph) and/or (L7) Fly as the Eagle (50mph) and/or (L8) Winged Flight (25x5=Spd 125 = ~85mph, or 30x5=150 = ~102mph if using Superhuman Strength) to increase their mobility?

Talismans are like skills; they may or may not work for objects.
GM's call.

But yes, I think there are a number of things that could be done.
Especially if you have the means to add a Ward of Permanence to a spell affecting the golem.

Slap some armor on them.
Slap a Naruni Force Field on them.

The stone/iron skin might cause some problems with chafing in armor, although padding might help... golems look kinda blocky so even with a height given the art implies they're thicker than us, may not fit too snugly. Probably doable (maybe with some GM penalties) in larger suits.

Armor can be made to fit all sorts of inhuman critters on Rifts Earth.
Golems wouldn't be much problem.

Personally I think it should work like dragons: they originally had 2D6 MD and now it's 2D6 (claws) + SNPS damage. The 1D6 should be from how stone/iron is hard and be a bonus so SNPS so golems ought to to 3D6 or 4D6 per attack.

Hm.
I can see that.

If you take the time to teach your golem Wrestling, that'd give it the ability to Pin on 18+.

Since Wrestling isn't available as a secondary skill the Rogue Scholar option isn't present... so we'd need some other way.

True.

You'd basically need to go the standard route of teaching the golem an OCC. An adequate amount of OCCs lack IQ requirements so maybe this is feasible, but the golem would need to earn XP somehow.

I don't think you get XP for stuff minions do so it'd be nice to know the potential XP from their actions goes to some use. Also makes mummies/zombies/golems more interesting over time as they become growing NPCs instead of static equipment. Something not offered by duration-limited animated dead or Magic Warrior / Warrior Horde / Phantom Horse unless you can permanence ward them.

I wouldn't think that a Golem could learn an OCC.
No way for them to earn XP, as things stand.

Saying "Read this book" is NOT a complex command. It's very simple.
It might be an impossible command for an illiterate to follow, but it's a very simple command.

Teaching somebody to read is also not a complex command--it's a series of very, very simple commands, stuff so simple that children a LOT younger than 9-10 are able to learn to read successfully.

So with "can not speak, nor read" you take the first as a physical impediment but the second as simply informing us they don't come with that skill but not that it's a learning disability so they could learn to do it later or have it magically imparted via Eyes of Thoth?

Basically, yes.
Eyes of Thoth would be one way to do it.

Compare to "the zombies is more intelligent than the mummy and can speak, read simple signs and sentences"

Is simple signs/sentences only a zombie's built-in capability and then you can develop more advanced literacy skills with time?

I'd think so.

It makes me wonder if this ritual is assuming an already-literate person's corpse (retaining some minor skills of the previous life) or if it's meant to imply that the magic imparts the ability to read signs/sentences (simple ones) even to the corpse of an illiterate person.

I think that the abilities of the mummy/zombie are separate from the abilities of the living person.

Mummies and Golems: are they unable to understand complex commands FOREVER, or only at first until they gain skills which then allow them to understand those commands? Also how do we determine what is 'complex' except for the (well-needed) low attribute penalties/limits in RUE?

I'd think that the inability to understand complex commands is due to their low Intelligence.
So unless you find a way to raise their Intelligence (like a PFRPG magic ring), it's not something that they could learn.

But determining a "complex command" is pretty simple: does the command consist of many different connected parts?
If so, then it's complex.
If not, then not.

MDC technically isn't SDC either, so the same would apply if the GM adheres strictly to the rules: MDC creatures can't create golems.

Which is quite possibly a good idea, since if a creature is MDC to begin with, the odds are good that it has hundreds of MDC, and could afford to make more golems much more easily than an SDC mage could.

We should allow trickery to get around this though.

Agreed.

[Killer Cyborg]

Come to think of it.... "regenerates completely within 24 hours unless its heart is removed" doesn't really say the golem 'dies' per-se if the heart is removed, does it? What if that just pauses the regeneration?

Couldn't you feasibly retrieve the stolen heart and put it back inside the chest cavity and then the golem's regeneration count-down would continue?

Interesting question!

[Axelmania]

Any situation where a mage can't afford a diamond (or where it simply wasn't available), and/or any situation where the mage is unable to appropriately sculpt iron (and/or it is unavailable).

Molding iron is always required to make a golem, since the heart is always made of that.

The body is always made out of clay, the magic transforms it into stone or iron.

If diamonds were super-rare they'd bound to be worth a lot more. Considering you need 2000 credits of Onyx, 8000 of diamond isn't a huge step up. Considering that the cost is buying spells level 10 or higher is 250,000-1million it's still a drop in the bucket. A level 1 shifter for example beginning with 1D6x1000 credits anad 2D6x1000 in black market items has an average of 10,500 worth of equity so they could afford such a diamond. It's merely the purchase price of an NG-57 Northern Gun Heavy-Duty Ion Blaster.

Talismans are like skills; they may or may not work for objects. GM's call.

Golems are "born" and have "life" and "survive" though

"the mystic places a single drop of his blood on the behemoth's forehead to bring it to life"
"Golems are mystical Mega-Damage creatures born of magic"
"can survive underwater"

This is muddied by another part of course:

"Since the horrid thing was never Alive, Turn Dead is useless, as is Banishment, Negation and Remove Curse."

The way I make sense of this is: a golem IS alive, in the present tense, but it wasn't "was" alive (past tense) like something which is dead was.

No way for them to earn XP, as things stand.

Why not? NPCs can earn XP.

[Blue_Lion]

I play a TW my golem is a combat robot with built in weapon system and a computer ai to give it intelligence, skills ect as well as built in TW abilties. So golems can be fairly advanced in rifts, countering many of the inerheart disadvantage.(the usefulness of many spells skyrocket once you introduce TWs.) The golem army idea might be done by a TW with a factory pumping out robo-golems.

A typically golem does have some nice benefits. Such as coming back from destruction unless its heart is removed.

There appears to be ritual that allows a mage to shift his soul and PPE to a golem I have seen npcs stated as such so there may be another use for a mage golem army. (but may require a spell of legend)

[flatline]

I play a TW my golem is a combat robot with built in weapon system and a computer ai to give it intelligence, skills ect as well as built in TW abilties. So golems can be fairly advanced in rifts, countering many of the inerheart disadvantage.(the usefulness of many spells skyrocket once you introduce TWs.) The golem army idea might be done by a TW with a factory pumping out robo-golems.

A typically golem does have some nice benefits. Such as coming back from destruction unless its heart is removed.

There appears to be ritual that allows a mage to shift his soul and PPE to a golem I have seen npcs stated as such so there may be another use for a mage golem army. (but may require a spell of legend)

There's a warlock spell that lets you shift your mind/soul/whatever into a golem. But they coupled insanities to it which makes it far less appealing. It's never come up in a game, but I've house-ruled away the insanities.

--flatline

[ShadowLogan]

Since the SDC cost isn't technically damage, it technically cannot affect Hit Points.
However, I'd consider running things where HP cost could be paid, since there would be some obvious downsides to spending HP, even if they are able to be replenished.

It gets worse actually. I thought I remembered something about a golem's controlling entity in Elemental magic (couldn't find it, might be thinking of minor Earth elementals being mistaken for one). So I reviewed BoM's Level 8 Earth version of the spell/ritual thinking it would be there, it wasn't. What I found was that unlike in PF2E main book that basically said "as the Wizard version" (not in so few words), the Rifts Book of Magic Level 8 Earth Elemental description is more "Change & Paste" the wizard version with a few differences:
-4 Hit Point Cost VS 6 SDC Cost
-ANY SIZE upto 20ft tall VS 6-18ft tall
-PP value (which imparts bonuses) VS no PP value being noted
-receives bonus to strike along with Save vs magic VS no bonus to strike
-effects of the Mend Stone Spell being cast on it VS no mention
-much higher MDC for Elemental vs Wizard version (when compared by the same type/config)
-and the obvious reduced PPE cost for Elemental vs Wizard
-incidentally if we also include the PF2E Wizard version they have different size range, additional attributes (PE and PB), a different set of bonuses, skills of note, Horror Factor by type, and Nightvision compared to the two Rifts version (I'm skipping over the obvious AR and the SDC to MDC ratio isn't 1:1).

The differences in the spell by School would seem to give some precedent that HP could be used after SDC are exhausted.

It doesn't seem likely, because there is no mention of Golems being otherwise visually impaired.
I don't see it as a physical limitation, because I can't think of any such limitation that would affect only reading.

I agree there isn't a mention of being visually impaired or having other vision type would be the simplest explanation as to why the Golem can not read and not effect other visual aspects.

Otherwise if we take the Robot analogy, we can just say that the unit is not programmed to read/write. Nothing states that the Golem's programming can be altered, and only the creator can order one around (unlike a Zombie who can designate), so it might not have the ability to update its "software" with full fledged skills, though some things might be inherent or so simple it really doesn't count as a "skill" (ex. tie your shoe, or get dressed, or open door) that it can learn it as a "trick".

Something else to remember is that IQ comes in different forms, so we could be dealing with animal IQ of # and not human IQ, though I will admit usually this is noted as animal when it applies and it isn't here.

There appears to be ritual that allows a mage to shift his soul and PPE to a golem I have seen npcs stated as such so there may be another use for a mage golem army. (but may require a spell of legend)

Earth Elemental Magic has such a spell/ritual available at Level 8. I don't think I've seen it available elsewhere (off-hand) in such a complete form, but normal wizard invocation list does include a spell for transferring (unusable PPE) to another, and even knowledge/skill. Though More than a few Elemental invocation/rituals are duplicated in Wizard form, so it is theoretically possible.

[13eowulf]

What about Create Magic Manikin from Mysteries of Magic?

If making a group of Golems why not add a Manikin, at least one, as a 'commander', as they are vastly more intelligent and capable (understands all languages, knows basic math, and 6 other skills of choice, with some restrictions).

[Nekira Sudacne]

KC, it seems to me the root of our disagreement is you think their inability to understand complex commands comes from their IQ, and I don't. I think its a hard limit of the golem itself, and magic to boost IQ will do nothing but give them slightly better tactical sense. There is nothing in the spell to link their inability to follow complex commands, read or write to their IQ, its listed as a seperate limit apart from their stats. Boost IQ to 30 if you want, itll just be an idiot savant, clever in doing the few things that it can do, and forever unable to learn new skills no matter how patient they are. It feels like you are making a leap of logic to get around a limit

[Killer Cyborg]

KC, it seems to me the root of our disagreement is you think their inability to understand complex commands comes from their IQ, and I don't.

We certainly DO disagree on that point, but I don't know that it's the root of the disagreement.
The inability to understand complex commands, for example, would not prevent them from learning new skills, or otherwise performing complex tasks.

Regardless of our disagreement on why the Golems cannot understand complex commands, we agree that they cannot do so.
We disagree on other points, possibly still including what exactly a "complex command" is, which is why I've addressed that point numerous times.

I think its a hard limit of the golem itself, and magic to boost IQ will do nothing but give them slightly better tactical sense. There is nothing in the spell to link their inability to follow complex commands, read or write to their IQ, its listed as a seperate limit apart from their stats. Boost IQ to 30 if you want, itll just be an idiot savant, clever in doing the few things that it can do, and forever unable to learn new skills no matter how patient they are. It feels like you are making a leap of logic to get around a limit

There is nothing in the spell that directly links their inability to follow complex commands.
There is nothing in the spell that indicates some other, unspecified and unmentioned explanation for their inability to follow complex commands.

Going with Occam's Razor here, the most likely explanation that fits all the fact is that Golems' mental limitations stem from their low IQ, not from unknown other sources.

[Killer Cyborg]

Any situation where a mage can't afford a diamond (or where it simply wasn't available), and/or any situation where the mage is unable to appropriately sculpt iron (and/or it is unavailable).

Molding iron is always required to make a golem, since the heart is always made of that.

The body is always made out of clay, the magic transforms it into stone or iron.

It doesn't say that in the BoM description.
Does it specify it somewhere?

If diamonds were super-rare they'd bound to be worth a lot more.

Book prices are the average price of diamonds, not the price of all diamonds everywhere.
In some places, diamonds are still scarcer than in others.

Considering you need 2000 credits of Onyx, 8000 of diamond isn't a huge step up. Considering that the cost is buying spells level 10 or higher is 250,000-1million it's still a drop in the bucket. A level 1 shifter for example beginning with 1D6x1000 credits anad 2D6x1000 in black market items has an average of 10,500 worth of equity so they could afford such a diamond. It's merely the purchase price of an NG-57 Northern Gun Heavy-Duty Ion Blaster.

Not all mages are PCs with their choice of starting gear.

Talismans are like skills; they may or may not work for objects. GM's call.

Golems are "born" and have "life" and "survive" though

"the mystic places a single drop of his blood on the behemoth's forehead to bring it to life"
"Golems are mystical Mega-Damage creatures born of magic"
"can survive underwater"

This is muddied by another part of course:

"Since the horrid thing was never Alive, Turn Dead is useless, as is Banishment, Negation and Remove Curse."

The way I make sense of this is: a golem IS alive, in the present tense, but it wasn't "was" alive (past tense) like something which is dead was.

No, it's never been alive.
It's only "brought to life" in the metaphorical sense.

No way for them to earn XP, as things stand.

Why not? NPCs can earn XP.

a) Golems aren't NPCs.
b) I'm unaware for any rules allowing NPCs to earn XP.

[Nekira Sudacne]

KC, it seems to me the root of our disagreement is you think their inability to understand complex commands comes from their IQ, and I don't.

We certainly DO disagree on that point, but I don't know that it's the root of the disagreement.
The inability to understand complex commands, for example, would not prevent them from learning new skills, or otherwise performing complex tasks.

Regardless of our disagreement on why the Golems cannot understand complex commands, we agree that they cannot do so.
We disagree on other points, possibly still including what exactly a "complex command" is, which is why I've addressed that point numerous times.

I think its a hard limit of the golem itself, and magic to boost IQ will do nothing but give them slightly better tactical sense. There is nothing in the spell to link their inability to follow complex commands, read or write to their IQ, its listed as a seperate limit apart from their stats. Boost IQ to 30 if you want, itll just be an idiot savant, clever in doing the few things that it can do, and forever unable to learn new skills no matter how patient they are. It feels like you are making a leap of logic to get around a limit

There is nothing in the spell that directly links their inability to follow complex commands.
There is nothing in the spell that indicates some other, unspecified and unmentioned explanation for their inability to follow complex commands.

Going with Occam's Razor here, the most likely explanation that fits all the fact is that Golems' mental limitations stem from their low IQ, not from unknown other sources.

No, Occam's Razor indicates one should take the text of the spell as it comes. It says that Golems cannot understand complex commands, therefore they cannot understand complex commands. There is no other unmentioned or unspecified reason to add in, there need be none--the spell says they cannot understand complex commands, ergo they cannot understand complex commands, there need be no reason other than this, and to add anything--even linking it to IQ--is needlessly adding a variable to the spell. I'm not claiming an unspecified and unmentioned explination--i'm saying the only explination needed or rationally required is the phrase "cannot understand complex commands". There need be nothing deeper here, to add in anything is to violate occams razor.

Also

We certainly DO disagree on that point, but I don't know that it's the root of the disagreement.
The inability to understand complex commands, for example, would not prevent them from learning new skills, or otherwise performing complex tasks.

Umm...actually I do disagree on both those points

[Prysus]

Molding iron is always required to make a golem, since the heart is always made of that.

The body is always made out of clay, the magic transforms it into stone or iron.

It doesn't say that in the BoM description.
Does it specify it somewhere?[/quote]
Greetings and Salutations. I don't have my BoM in front of me, but I have PF2 and I think the wording is mostly the same. This would come from the opening paragraph, as well as the P.P.E. cost. There are 4 steps ...

1: Draw pentagram.
2: Sculpt the Golem out of clay.
3: Place gem eyes.
4: Mold heart out of iron.
5: Perform the ritual.

The steps are listed in the Golem flavor text, and doesn't distinguish a difference between stone or iron, and doesn't mention crafting the golem with either.

b) I'm unaware for any rules allowing NPCs to earn XP.

Does the Experience Point section specify it only applies to Player Characters? Or does it apply to "characters" in general? Non-Player Characters would still be characters. I don't have much of a stake in this one, I'm just genuinely curious. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Killer Cyborg]

Molding iron is always required to make a golem, since the heart is always made of that.

The body is always made out of clay, the magic transforms it into stone or iron.

It doesn't say that in the BoM description.
Does it specify it somewhere?

Greetings and Salutations. I don't have my BoM in front of me, but I have PF2 and I think the wording is mostly the same. This would come from the opening paragraph, as well as the P.P.E. cost. There are 4 steps ...

1: Draw pentagram.
2: Sculpt the Golem out of clay.
3: Place gem eyes.
4: Mold heart out of iron.
5: Perform the ritual.

The steps are listed in the Golem flavor text, and doesn't distinguish a difference between stone or iron, and doesn't mention crafting the golem with either.[/quote]

That's pretty much the same as the BoM.
Nothing says that it transforms into Iron if that's your goal. I always assumed that the instructions were for crafting a Stone golem, just as an example.

But transformation would make sense, since you can't exactly sculpt Stone out of Clay to begin with.

b) I'm unaware for any rules allowing NPCs to earn XP.

Does the Experience Point section specify it only applies to Player Characters? Or does it apply to "characters" in general? Non-Player Characters would still be characters. I don't have much of a stake in this one, I'm just genuinely curious. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Well, you know Palladium... the XP rules are in the "Character Creation" section.

Often the rules for XP just refer to "characters," but it's clear that they weren't made with NPCs in mind.
There are passages such as (RUE 294):
The ultimate purpose of Experience Points and Experience levels is to provide a means by which the player's character can grow and develop.
and
(RUE 296)
Each time a player's character gets enough Experience Points to reach the next "level," his skills and Hit Points (and PPE for practitioners of magic and ISP for psychics) increase accordingly.
or
The maximum level a player character can reach is 15.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC, it seems to me the root of our disagreement is you think their inability to understand complex commands comes from their IQ, and I don't.

We certainly DO disagree on that point, but I don't know that it's the root of the disagreement.
The inability to understand complex commands, for example, would not prevent them from learning new skills, or otherwise performing complex tasks.

Regardless of our disagreement on why the Golems cannot understand complex commands, we agree that they cannot do so.
We disagree on other points, possibly still including what exactly a "complex command" is, which is why I've addressed that point numerous times.

I think its a hard limit of the golem itself, and magic to boost IQ will do nothing but give them slightly better tactical sense. There is nothing in the spell to link their inability to follow complex commands, read or write to their IQ, its listed as a seperate limit apart from their stats. Boost IQ to 30 if you want, itll just be an idiot savant, clever in doing the few things that it can do, and forever unable to learn new skills no matter how patient they are. It feels like you are making a leap of logic to get around a limit

There is nothing in the spell that directly links their inability to follow complex commands.
There is nothing in the spell that indicates some other, unspecified and unmentioned explanation for their inability to follow complex commands.

Going with Occam's Razor here, the most likely explanation that fits all the fact is that Golems' mental limitations stem from their low IQ, not from unknown other sources.

No, Occam's Razor indicates one should take the text of the spell as it comes.

That's not how Occam's Razor works.
It's about NOT needlessly multiplying entities, such as assuming that there are three separate causes for three effects, when one single cause would sufficiently explain all three.

It says that Golems cannot understand complex commands, therefore they cannot understand complex commands. There is no other unmentioned or unspecified reason to add in, there need be none--the spell says they cannot understand complex commands, ergo they cannot understand complex commands, there need be no reason other than this, and to add anything--even linking it to IQ--is needlessly adding a variable to the spell. I'm not claiming an unspecified and unmentioned explination--i'm saying the only explination needed or rationally required is the phrase "cannot understand complex commands". There need be nothing deeper here, to add in anything is to violate occams razor.

"Because the rules say" works on a meta-game level, but not on an in-game level.
And from a design level, there's usually a purpose or intention behind a rule, a reason for it, other than "Just Because."
Rules do not arise fully-formed out of a void--they're created for reasons.
A rule cannot be the reason for itself.

We certainly DO disagree on that point, but I don't know that it's the root of the disagreement.
The inability to understand complex commands, for example, would not prevent them from learning new skills, or otherwise performing complex tasks.

Umm...actually I do disagree on both those points

Shame.
If you wish to address that disagreement, then I suggest you revisit my previous posts explaining what exactly a "complex command" is, and what it does and does not entail.

[eliakon]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.
Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

[Axelmania]

For this to be more than flavor text wouldn't we need to have "complex" defined in respect to where to draw the line between simple/complex commands? Complex is a relative concept too since things we don't understand are complex but things we do understand are simple.

"Track this person" is complex to most golems since they do not have the Tracking skill, but it isn't complex to the PF2 version who comes with the skill built-in.

unlike in PF2E main book that basically said "as the Wizard version" (not in so few words), the Rifts Book of Magic Level 8 Earth Elemental description is more "Change & Paste" the wizard version

Actually, it's taken from the original Rifts Conversion Book translation of Warlock spells, which changed and pasted from the Palladium RPG. "Any size up to" was originally from there, though it was only 18 feet not 20 feet on the Palladium world.

The original PRPG golems were actually pretty awesome... they were smarter (IQ 8 instead of 6) and more agile (PP20, even better than the CB/BoM PP 18 you mention) plus faster (speed 12 if stone, speed 10 if iron)

They also did really amazing damage. At first you might think that +10 damage comes from PS 25 but I think it's in addition to it (so +20 to damage) since it lists a parry/dodge bonus of +3 but no +3 to strike which would come from PP 20

Of course they would cost you 6 HP instead of 4 HP but I think it's worth the trade-off.

It was an elemental spell printed under warlocks but wizards had access to many elemental spells although it often changed the level the spell was or some statistics like duration. It was HP because back then nobody had SDC, it was Rifts that introduced the modified 6-18 feet version which could draw on SDC.

The wizard version on page 214 of PF2 is nice for its strike bonus (nothing additional due to pathetic PP of 15) and high PE of 25 (+5 vs magic is better than the mere +2 they used to get) and knowing they know basic math, land navigation, tracking humans and climbing is nice, affirming Golems can indeed use skills. This version cannot wear body armor for some reason... maybe due to the 10 foot minimum size, although I don't understand why since Ogres are now 12 feet and can wear armor...

[Killer Cyborg]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

[Marcethus]

I play a TW my golem is a combat robot with built in weapon system and a computer ai to give it intelligence, skills ect as well as built in TW abilties. So golems can be fairly advanced in rifts, countering many of the inerheart disadvantage.(the usefulness of many spells skyrocket once you introduce TWs.) The golem army idea might be done by a TW with a factory pumping out robo-golems.

A typically golem does have some nice benefits. Such as coming back from destruction unless its heart is removed.

There appears to be ritual that allows a mage to shift his soul and PPE to a golem I have seen npcs stated as such so there may be another use for a mage golem army. (but may require a spell of legend)

A TW Golem huh? Sounds like the Anti-Monster out of South America 1. LOL

[tuvermage]

First, I'll say the game is moldable to however you want to play it. If you don't like a rule, GMs can throw it out. If people want a rule, a GM can make it.

My groups decided you can not play the 6 SDC but you have to pay 5x the PPE cost. Our standard rule for anything the requires a permanent drain. If a MDC creature it pays with MDC instead of SDC. Yes, that sucks for MDC creatures, but it gives an edge to SDC creatures. Given how many MDC options players have been given, it's nice to give people a reason not to pick the MDC every time. But again, this is how my group likes it. You can hate it, or you can use it too. It's up to you.

Can a Golem use a gun. short answer, yes. Long answer, yes, but not well. As pointed out above, they are about equal with a 10 year old. I've taken 10 year olds shooting. Yes, they can shoot; they can hit a target; takes them longer to aim. Throw in moving targets and they miss more than they hit. Yes, there are 10 year olds who can hit moving targets very well, but give a 10 year old a gun who has never shot before and chances are they will be a bad shot. I'd give -8 to hit anything and -12 if they are moving faster than 15 mph.

Teaching them to read. Can it be done, short answer, yes. long answer, yes but it will take a very long time. Golems can't talk. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to read? it takes a dialogue. You can show them the word and tell them the word, but at some point you point to the word and have them tell you want it means. Can it be done without the ability to speak, again yes, but it takes longer. even if you do teach them how to read, I don't see their reading level passing a 3rd graders.

complex commands vs simple commands. Yes, you can always break complex commands down into simple ones. but how many can the golem hold at any given moment. if my boss tells me to do a dozen things, I am going to write them all down because if I don't by the time I get the first three done, I'll have forgotten the other nine. Golems will be similar. If you sat in front of the golem and barked each order at it when it was needed, yes the golem could build a nuclear reactor. but you would have to direct it the whole time. if you have 10 year old around you can run your own test. see how much you can tell them to do before the stuff leaks out of their head. You can tell the golem to clean the kitchen, it can clean the kitchen. but if you tell it clean the kitchen, the glasses go on the top of the dish washer and the plates go on the bottom, that's about as complex as it can be given in a single command. Remember most of the time the commands are meant to be, tell the golem and walk away. That's why breaking complex command into a chain of simple ones doesn't work. If you did take the time to teach the golem to read then you could write a list for the golem to read. However then you run into many issues. First you have to painfully write out exactly what you want done. (any computer programmer or People who write SOPs will tell you it's harder than you think) second, the golem has to do skill checks each time it reads the list, given it's 3rd reading level and low IQ it's going make mistakes. "I said feed the cats, not eat the cats!" Third, someone could alter the list while your gone. "Where's all my stuff?!" looks at list "Who wrote load everything into the truck outside?!"

[eliakon]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

So?
In universe they leveled up. As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist. Or that those characters were never children... after all, they were created as fully formed, fully trained adults right? So they obviously were never anything other than what they are at the instant that the game starts?

[Blue_Lion]

I play a TW my golem is a combat robot with built in weapon system and a computer ai to give it intelligence, skills ect as well as built in TW abilties. So golems can be fairly advanced in rifts, countering many of the inerheart disadvantage.(the usefulness of many spells skyrocket once you introduce TWs.) The golem army idea might be done by a TW with a factory pumping out robo-golems.

A typically golem does have some nice benefits. Such as coming back from destruction unless its heart is removed.

There appears to be ritual that allows a mage to shift his soul and PPE to a golem I have seen npcs stated as such so there may be another use for a mage golem army. (but may require a spell of legend)

A TW Golem huh? Sounds like the Anti-Monster out of South America 1. LOL

Well when you think about it what is the tech equilvent of a golem?

A golem is a non living object giving "life" and mobility through magic.
A robot is non living object giving mobility and can be argued in rifts can poses life through science.

It would be quite different that the anti monster as that is a TW borg(I would say poorly done).
In this case you a TW would be adding the powers of a golem to a robot(magic adding to the capacity of science route of TW). Making a robot that regenerates and can recover from destruction unless you remove its heart.

[Blue_Lion]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

So?
In universe they leveled up. As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist. Or that those characters were never children... after all, they were created as fully formed, fully trained adults right? So they obviously were never anything other than what they are at the instant that the game starts?

I do not know of anything that stops NPCs from gaining exp, in fact some NPCs that travel and assist PC would be expected to level up over time. You may normally make NPCs higher than level 1 but I have been in games where PCs had started at higher than level one and then gain exp normally(the Temporal wizard is a good example of this).

[eliakon]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

So?
In universe they leveled up. As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist. Or that those characters were never children... after all, they were created as fully formed, fully trained adults right? So they obviously were never anything other than what they are at the instant that the game starts?

I do not know of anything that stops NPCs from gaining exp, in fact some NPCs that travel and assist PC would be expected to level up over time. You may normally make NPCs higher than level 1 but I have been in games where PCs had started at higher than level one and then gain exp normally(the Temporal wizard is a good example of this).

Actually, haven't some of the canon NPCs gone up in levels between books?
I could have sworn some of the CS people did just that.

[Killer Cyborg]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

So?
In universe they leveled up.

So the NPC hasn't earned XP, not in the same way that PCs do.
If all you're saying is that the GM can grant things to imaginary people by fiat, then cool--we're not in disagreement on that point.
A GM could give a NPC experience points, or wings, or a spaceship, or all kinds of powers.
To me, that's not the same as the NPC earning any of that.
"Earning" by my view would be something like the NPC joining the PCs on various adventures, and actually doing things that would earn a PC experience points, not just the GM waving his hand and saying, "Hey, they've leveled up!" and us imagining that the NPC must have done something in-universe to earn it.

So basically, we're just butting heads over semantics, apparently.

As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist.

No.
It would be like saying that just because there are no rules for characters to have children, that there are no rules for characters to have children.

[eliakon]

NPCs would have to be able to earn XP somehow. Since they have levels.
There is no way to gain levels with out XP.

Sure there is; GM fiat.

Heck there are even XP charts for classes that are listed as NPC only.

Good point.


Could be for comparison only, of course.
It's doubtful that it's so that GMs will take the time to start their NPCs from level 1, then work them up until they're higher levels.
Most GMs I know, when they want a 10th level NPC, they roll up a 10th level NPC.
They don't roll up a 1st level NPC, then level him up until he's ready to appear in an adventure.

So?
In universe they leveled up.

So the NPC hasn't earned XP, not in the same way that PCs do.
If all you're saying is that the GM can grant things to imaginary people by fiat, then cool--we're not in disagreement on that point.
A GM could give a NPC experience points, or wings, or a spaceship, or all kinds of powers.
To me, that's not the same as the NPC earning any of that.
"Earning" by my view would be something like the NPC joining the PCs on various adventures, and actually doing things that would earn a PC experience points, not just the GM waving his hand and saying, "Hey, they've leveled up!" and us imagining that the NPC must have done something in-universe to earn it.

So basically, we're just butting heads over semantics, apparently.

I would say its more fundamental than that.
If you are claiming that they didn't earn XP... even though they seem to have gone up in level. Its more than semantics, your claiming that only PCs can do deeds that earn XP, that only PCs learn from their experiances, and that only PCs can earn XP. That is far more than semantics, that is a basic, fundamental issue.

As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist.

No.
It would be like saying that just because there are no rules for characters to have children, that there are no rules for characters to have children.

Sigh, you seem to have missed the rest of the analogy.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that they were never children.
By arguing that NPCs levels spring into the world fully formed, and that their level gains similarly just 'appear' through spontaneous generation the same argument would imply that since there is no rule to discuss childhood, that you didn't have one. That because you show up in play with starting gear that there was never a time that you had to earn that starting gear... I firmly reject all such notions.

[Axelmania]

haven't some of the canon NPCs gone up in levels between books?
I could have sworn some of the CS people did just that.

Page 216 of Coalition War Campaign notes that Joseph Prosek II grew in experience the last 5 years. He's 8th here, and was 5th in Sourcebook 1 (page 21)

Page 215 shows that Karl Prosek increased from 10th to 11th during the same period from SB1 (page 20)

Cabot/Underhill stayed 15/10

Tarn stayed 14th between Africa and War Campaign, Thorpe went from 9th to 10th.

Page 79 of the original Rifts Sourcebook has Hagan Lonovitch as level 6, Sourcebook One REVISED page 90 mentions he was that in 102PA and is 9th level in 109PA (also alignment changed from Diabolic to Aberrent during that time)

I don't know anyone else who's been printed twice.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you are claiming that they didn't earn XP... even though they seem to have gone up in level. Its more than semantics, your claiming that only PCs can do deeds that earn XP, that only PCs learn from their experiances, and that only PCs can earn XP. That is far more than semantics, that is a basic, fundamental issue.

Still seems like semantics to me, although perhaps another word would describe it better.


In order:
-NPCs don't "seem" to have gone up in level. They have indeed gone up in level. A writer decides that they have more XP and a higher level, and once it's in ink, the NPC has those things.
-Any character can do the deeds that earn xp. Only PCs can earn xp from doing those deeds.
An NPC can (in-game) have a Clever Idea, for example. But unless the GM houserules things, that NPC doesn't actually get the (out-of-game) XP Bonus for having that idea.
-All characters learn (in-game) from their experiences (or fail to learn, depending on the character and the experience).
But yes, only PCs earn XP, because the purpose of Experience Points is to provide a means by which the player's character can grow and develop.
NPCs don't need such means. They have their own means: GM's fiat.
This is because the purpose of NPCs and PCs is fundamentally different. The PCs provide a means and a motive for players to interact with the game, while the NPCs provide the players with a game to interact with.

As you like to point out a lot, the game rules and what they represent are different things.
It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that children don't exist.

No.
It would be like saying that just because there are no rules for characters to have children, that there are no rules for characters to have children.

Sigh, you seem to have missed the rest of the analogy.

I didn't miss it; I skipped it.

It would be like saying that just because players roll up characters that are ready to play, that they were never children.

No, it wouldn't.
Experience Points is NOT an in-game phenomenon. Experience Points are a game mechanic.
Childhood is an in-game phenomenon. Childhood is NOT a game mechanic.

Saying that PCs can level up with XP is discussing game mechanics. It's discussing out-of-game phenomena, NOT in-game-world phenomena.
So it's not apt to compare the two situations.

NPCs can level up with XP, because they don't need XP. The GM can just write "Level 12" on the character sheet without jotting down ANY XP at all, because the Experience Point mechanism is completely unnecessary for NPCs.

From an in-game perspective, it would be absurd to say that characters need XP to level up, or to claim that any character who has grown or changed must necessarily have earned any experience points, because from an in-game perspective experience points aren't even a thing; they don't exist in-game.

Childhood, on the other hand, does exist in-game.

So compare the two claims:
1. Because a GM doesn't run the NPC through adventures, granting them XP the same way (and for the same reasons) that a PC gains XP, the NPC doesn't earn experience points.
2. Because a Player doesn't role-play the childhood of a character, that character never had a childhood in-game.

The first claim is discussing game mechanics.
The second sentence is discussing in-game events.
These are not the same thing.

[eliakon]

So, let me get this straight.
Now you are claiming that only by going on adventures as a PC does anyone "earn" an experience point.
And thus, by narrowly defining the word "earn" to an arbitrarily narrow interpretation (that has absolutely no book support) you then argue that no NPC can "earn" experience and thus circularly define your claim that there is no rule for NPCs to earn experience.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, let me get this straight.
Now you are claiming that only by going on adventures as a PC does anyone "earn" an experience point.
And thus, by narrowly defining the word "earn" to an arbitrarily narrow interpretation...

Almost like semantics.

... (that has absolutely no book support) you then argue that no NPC can "earn" experience and thus circularly define your claim that there is no rule for NPCs to earn experience.

Not quite.

What I'm saying is:
1. There are no rules that state that NPCs can earn XP.
If you think I'm wrong, then great!
Just find the rule that states that NPCs can earn XP, and I'll reverse my position.

2. Earning XP (or anything, for that matter) requires that somebody do something.
From a mechanical perspective, NPCs only ever do anything when the GM plays them doing something.
Just saying "Oh, this guy went on a lot of adventures" is not anybody earning anything.
Any XP handed out by fiat is simply handed out by fiat, which is not the same as earning them.
If a GM tells the players to roll up level 10 characters for the first session of play, then guess what?
-The players have not earned 10 levels of XP, just because their characters have them.
-The characters have not earned 10 levels of XP, just because the number appears on their character sheet. They have been given XP for free, with no effort on anybody's part.
-The characters have not in-game earned any XP, because characters never earn any XP in-game. Nor are they given any XP in-game.
XP are a mechanic--an out-of-game phenomena.

[eliakon]

So, let me get this straight.
Now you are claiming that only by going on adventures as a PC does anyone "earn" an experience point.
And thus, by narrowly defining the word "earn" to an arbitrarily narrow interpretation...

Almost like semantics.

Right, got it. Your wanting to play sematic games so you can rules lawyer the definition of words, thus allowing you to make the rules do what ever you want...

Got it.

But if we DON'T accept the argument that you have to be a PC, then your claim fails. And frankly I have better things to do than play semantics games with someone over if the word "earn" only applies to actions taken 'on stage' by players or not.

I accept that you have defined away the ability for NPCs to earn XP at your table.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, let me get this straight.
Now you are claiming that only by going on adventures as a PC does anyone "earn" an experience point.
And thus, by narrowly defining the word "earn" to an arbitrarily narrow interpretation...

Almost like semantics.

Right, got it. Your wanting to play sematic games so you can rules lawyer the definition of words, thus allowing you to make the rules do what ever you want...

In my previous post, I linked to the definition of the word "earn."
I'm using the definition in it's common form, the form described in the dictionaries.
That's not playing any semantic games.
That's not rules-lawyering anything.

That's just me using a word as it's supposed to be used.

I'm not sure how you're trying to use it, but apparently it's some other way, so I earlier tried to just shrug, chalk our disagreement up to semantic differences, and move on.
You wouldn't move on.
So here we are.

But if we DON'T accept the argument that you have to be a PC, then your claim fails.

Did you even read my previous post...?

And frankly I have better things to do than play semantics games with someone over if the word "earn" only applies to actions taken 'on stage' by players or not.

Good. Me too.
Although it's not so much whether "earn" is applied "on stage," as it is that "xp" is never applied in-game.
When you talk about NPCs leveling up "in universe," you're trying to apply out-of-universe events (leveling up) in-universe, which doesn't make any sense.
In-universe, there aren't any such thing as levels or XP. Those are (as I've pointed out any number of times) out-of-universe things.

Likewise, when you claim that because the out-of-universe mechanisms for Level or XP have shifted, that must mean that the character earned XP in-universe, you're not talking about anything possible.
There is no in-universe XP.
Characters don't walk around in the game universe saying stuff like, "Boy, I'm glad I got enough XP from killing that ogre for me to finally level up!"
Doesn't happen.

What does happen in-universe is that people kill an ogre, become better fighters, and gain more skills and abilities based on their actions and their reactions.
This in-universe phenomena is reflected by the game mechanics in the form of XP or Levels, but the rise in XP or level is not--and can not be--caused by in-universe events.
Yet again, XP and Levels are out-of-universe mechanisms.

You don't say stuff like "the puppet's strings moved because the puppet moved its head," not if you want to be correct.
You likewise don't say stuff like "The NPC gained XP because of off-stage events that were never played out, but that we should assume must have happened or something, otherwise the guy writing stuff down wouldn't have changed the stats."
The GM/Writer fiat gift of XP isn't caused by anything that happens in-game.
That's not how the world works.

I accept that you have defined away the ability for NPCs to earn XP at your table.

At my table, NPCs can and do earn XP. I've house-ruled that ability in, because it makes sense, and sometimes makes things more fun.

Please do try to differentiate between what the official rules of the game are, and how I actually play the game.
Nobody plays completely by-the-book.

And before you try to make assumptions about my personal feelings, here's a wacky thought--try just asking me how I feel about something, instead of attempting to tell me.

[Blue_Lion]

Page 296 RUE-Charter experience levels
"An experience table is provided for each occ and rcc. A charter involved in an adventure gains Experience points for his thoughts, actions and deeds."

PC= player charter
NPC= Non player charter.

So the book says that charters gain exp not players so by the book a NPC that is involved in an adventure gains exp just like PCs. The mistake probably comes from when they talked about how it is a way to reward players for there participating but the whole section talks about charters in general.

[Killer Cyborg]

Page 296 RUE-Charter experience levels
"An experience table is provided for each occ and rcc. A charter involved in an adventure gains Experience points for his thoughts, actions and deeds."

PC= player charter
NPC= Non player charter.

So the book says that charters gain exp not players so by the book a NPC that is involved in an adventure gains exp just like PCs. The mistake probably comes from when they talked about how it is a way to reward players for there participating but the whole section talks about charters in general.

I get what you're saying, and where you're coming from, but I disagree
.
The whole section is talking about Player Characters, which is what it's talking about when it says "characters."
Like if there's a shelter that only houses dogs, but it discusses "feeding the animals," it's not talking about lions or zebras--it's talking about the specific kind of animal in question.

That's why there are passages like RUE 239 that say things like "Since the characters are, presumably, good guys..."
That's not a presumption that ALL characters are good guys.
It's a presumption that all PCs are good guys.

Also note passages like (same page) "I always aware experience points for players using their heads..."
Players.
Because the passage is discussing PCs.

RUE 294
(Again) The ultimate purpose of Experience Points and Experience Levels is to provide a means by which the player's character can grow and develop.

and

Each player's character involved in a given situation or confrontation should receive the appropriate Experience Points for that event.

Nothing about NPCs involved in a situation or confrontation getting the appropriate XP, because the XP rules weren't meant for NPCs.

RUE 296
Each time a player's character gets enough Experience points to reach the next level, his skills and Hit Points... increase accordingly.


But there's good news too:
The maximum level a player character can reach is 15.

No stated limit here about what level NPCs can reach, because the level cap is at least partially about what kind of character it's fun to play, and that's not something that NPCs deal with.

[Blue_Lion]

Page 296 RUE-Charter experience levels
"An experience table is provided for each occ and rcc. A charter involved in an adventure gains Experience points for his thoughts, actions and deeds."

PC= player charter
NPC= Non player charter.

So the book says that charters gain exp not players so by the book a NPC that is involved in an adventure gains exp just like PCs. The mistake probably comes from when they talked about how it is a way to reward players for there participating but the whole section talks about charters in general.

I get what you're saying, and where you're coming from, but I disagree
.
The whole section is talking about Player Characters, which is what it's talking about when it says "characters."
Like if there's a shelter that only houses dogs, but it discusses "feeding the animals," it's not talking about lions or zebras--it's talking about the specific kind of animal in question.

That's why there are passages like RUE 239 that say things like "Since the characters are, presumably, good guys..."
That's not a presumption that ALL characters are good guys.
It's a presumption that all PCs are good guys.

Also note passages like (same page) "I always aware experience points for players using their heads..."
Players.
Because the passage is discussing PCs.

RUE 294
(Again) The ultimate purpose of Experience Points and Experience Levels is to provide a means by which the player's character can grow and develop.

and

Each player's character involved in a given situation or confrontation should receive the appropriate Experience Points for that event.

Nothing about NPCs involved in a situation or confrontation getting the appropriate XP, because the XP rules weren't meant for NPCs.

RUE 296
Each time a player's character gets enough Experience points to reach the next level, his skills and Hit Points... increase accordingly.


But there's good news too:
The maximum level a player character can reach is 15.

No stated limit here about what level NPCs can reach, because the level cap is at least partially about what kind of character it's fun to play, and that's not something that NPCs deal with.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. you are just one part and not the first part of experience point system. Refernce to charter and not player charter starts before that section. So your statement that the charter on page 293 is difined by talking about exp as the apply on to players on page 294 seams, flawed to means you half to set the tone for general statements up front not the middle or end.

Page 292. "The experience level approach is intended for long-term campaign, and on the premise that ALL characters start at level one."

So it starts talking about all charters on page 292 and page 294 is talking about exp as it applies to Payers.

[Killer Cyborg]

It sounds like you're saying that all NPCs start at level 1, and have to level up over the course of a campaign.

I, on the other hand, believe that passage is referring once again to all PLAYER Characters.

I can agree to disagree on this.

[Axelmania]

KC it is worth mentioning that "ultimate" purpose does not mean "only" purpose. I'd take that to mean the primary use of XP is for players but that GMs can also use it to identify NPC growth as a secondary purpose, which is why we have tables for NPC classes and why Joseph "has grown in experience" obviously meaning his level-ups came from experience (points).

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC it is worth mentioning that "ultimate" purpose does not mean "only" purpose. I'd take that to mean the primary use of XP is for players but that GMs can also use it to identify NPC growth as a secondary purpose, which is why we have tables for NPC classes and why Joseph "has grown in experience" obviously meaning his level-ups came from experience (points).

Again, do you believe that Joseph leveled up because KS or somebody tracked Joseph's actions over the course of a campaign, doling out the XP as they would to a PC?
OR did KS or somebody simply say, "He's probably higher level now," and jot down some new numbers?

If you believe it's the second, then no, his level-ups didn't come from experience points. They came with experience points, granted by writer fiat.
And if you believe it's the second, then I would think that it's safe to assume that the writer did not jot down any XP for this NPC first (if at all--I haven't looked at the stats to see if XP is even listed for this NPC, but it usually isn't), but instead jotted down the level, then looked up how many XP would be necessary to achieve this level.

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

I know of no rule that allows for that to happen.

[tuvermage]

I personally let NPC get xp and grow, but in practice not a llNPC are created equal. Most of my NPC don't get xp and can be think of cardboard cut out npc. These don't even have skill list outside of WP and combat skills, and they don't get xp. Not because they can't but because I don't bother to keep track as they are throw away NPCs Then there's recurring NPC which do have back story and skill list as they are meant to be kept around, I track their xp when I remember to, most of the time I give them an xp gain over time. Most of the time these NPC are out of sight, but time is still passing in the world. The people are still going about their lives and gaining experience. It's not a lot of experience, but I typically give my recurring NPC about 500 xp per month of game time. The Main NPC typically get twice that. Now I do try to keep track of any actions of note that the player cause to happen. If they have an alchemist create a very powerful magic weapon then that gets tracked. If the Main NPC has to either save the group or, in the villain role, mops the floor with the group, that gets noted.

[eliakon]

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

I know of no rule that allows for that to happen.

Off hand?
Temporal Wizard
Temporal Warrior
T-Man (says 'can start at first or second level' or some such)
There are plenty of rules that allow for characters to start above level one.

[Nightmask]

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

I know of no rule that allows for that to happen.

Off hand?
Temporal Wizard
Temporal Warrior
T-Man (says 'can start at first or second level' or some such)
There are plenty of rules that allow for characters to start above level one.

Particularly the 'GM allows for it' rule.

[eliakon]

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

I know of no rule that allows for that to happen.

Off hand?
Temporal Wizard
Temporal Warrior
T-Man (says 'can start at first or second level' or some such)
There are plenty of rules that allow for characters to start above level one.

Particularly the 'GM allows for it' rule.

Even ignoring Rule Zero, just the fact that there are multiple instances of it through out the game proves my point. That there are clearly rules that allow for Player Characters to start above level 1. And I didn't even bother doing a detailed search. I would bet that there are lots more instances of this rule in place.

[Killer Cyborg]

I stand corrected; there are a limited number of circumstances in which the rules allow PCs to start higher than level 1.

[Axelmania]

do you believe that Joseph leveled up because KS or somebody tracked Joseph's actions over the course of a campaign, doling out the XP as they would to a PC? OR did KS or somebody simply say, "He's probably higher level now," and jot down some new numbers?

Both are possible, we already know he has incorporated characters like Coake into the game based on campaigns, for all we know he actually does base NPC existence/progression on having run them in some campaign we don't know about.

If you believe it's the second, then no, his level-ups didn't come from experience points. They came with experience points, granted by writer fiat.

Even in games that get played, XP are often awarded by fiat rather than based on the guidelines given. A GM is even able to say "I'm giving you enough experience points to reach the next level, however many that is you need" if they want to. The character still gets the points and gets the level that way. Actually keeping track of the XP isn't necessary for the XP to still exist.

To look at this in another points realm, if Kevin Siembieda says that a character died, we can take that to mean their HP were reduced below negative PE, even if KS didn't actually game that out. XP like HP are points of reality which exist whether you specifically dabble in them or ignore them.

Player characters can start above level 1 too.

I know of no rule that allows for that to happen.

It's mentioned under some classes that players can start them higher. Not a universal guideline of course so anyone lacking those guidelines I presume has to start at 1.

I stand corrected; there are a limited number of circumstances in which the rules allow PCs to start higher than level 1.

Aren't all numbers limited? The list you were given was just a start.