Forums of the Megaverse®

In my experience, in RPG's player's hate the ol 'Shoehorn'. They very much prefer to think their actions have consiquencce. If not. They're just watchin' the GM tell a story where they have bit parts.

Its why when I GM I always tailor the games for who shows up and let them Drive, with me more describing the scenery and where they're going (( Also why I don't much like 'ADVENTURE" books, but much prefer SETTING BOOKS (world books)) Give me the map. Tell me what's there. Don't tell me where I 'have' to go with it. sorta thing.

The philosophical question of fate/free will might be interesting to explore.. but show your players that you're going to do ____ no matter what they do, if they like it or not.. .and your players get tweeked real fast.

Ninjabunny wrote:

Prince Artemis wrote:This was covered with Kevin over several shows actually. He's not a huge fan of time travel, since it can easily be turned into a crutch for things and he has no plans on expanding it beyond what is already in the books (at the time of the shows, things may have changed).

Also, period based rpgs tend to fail spectacularly so no, it's not a huge seller that they haven't tapped yet. It's a dud their not wasting time on.

ok the whole period based thing is only half true CoC is set in three time periods and is one of the top selling rpgs out there, of course this is a whole other topic.

Having played the game, I can honestly say that CoC is not period based. The game is not intrinsic on the period it's played in. It even has it set up so you can play the game in three different time periods within the game rules and it points out you can play it during any time line. The game is all about the mythos, not the settings you play in themselves.

Period based means that it's the period itself that is the main draw to the book/game. The only one I know of that has done moderately well is the Legend of the Five rings which is loosely based arround the samurai period. However, that sold more due to the card game then the merits of the RPG itself.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:The thing is, for that theory to be 'accepted' you're presuming (( with no factual basis what so ever)) that we are destined to be where we are. I tend to by and large leave destiny out of my sci fi. You say if you went back and killed hitler as a kid, that someone else would just take his place and get the same result. There's no evidence that can be cited that the world is on a pre-set path of destiny in that nature.

just as there is no evidence that can be cited that the world is on a pre-set path .. there is no evidence to support that it is not on a pre-set path either ..

But there are too many "strange" situations that clearly show that the world is on a preset path .. no matter what .. Least in my honest opinion.

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:The thing is, for that theory to be 'accepted' you're presuming (( with no factual basis what so ever)) that we are destined to be where we are. I tend to by and large leave destiny out of my sci fi. You say if you went back and killed hitler as a kid, that someone else would just take his place and get the same result. There's no evidence that can be cited that the world is on a pre-set path of destiny in that nature.

just as there is no evidence that can be cited that the world is on a pre-set path .. there is no evidence to support that it is not on a pre-set path either ..

But there are too many "strange" situations that clearly show that the world is on a preset path .. no matter what .. Least in my honest opinion.

The difference is, we can cite reasons and such for much of humanity's growth and course. You can show those reasons from history. Saying "If you killed hitler as a kid, his classmate Biltor would have risen to start the Nazi party, that it would happen no matter what' can not be proven in any way.

I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

sorry, but you can't make conclusions from a single datapoint that way. the existance of life on earth merely shows it is possible, and has no bearing on the difficulty or ease of life's formation elsewhere.
the existance of extremophiles here on earth, and the recent creation of 'proto-life' from inorganic materials show that recognizable life on earth is but one of many potential paths.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

sorry, but you can't make conclusions from a single datapoint that way. the existance of life on earth merely shows it is possible, and has no bearing on the difficulty or ease of life's formation elsewhere.
the existance of extremophiles here on earth, and the recent creation of 'proto-life' from inorganic materials show that recognizable life on earth is but one of many potential paths.

Actually yes you can.

The fact that we are hear to debate about it show's the truth of that matter quite clearly ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Lenwen wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I see no 'evidence" of destiny. What situations are you seeing that "Clearly show the world is on a preset path, no matter what" ?

The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

sorry, but you can't make conclusions from a single datapoint that way. the existance of life on earth merely shows it is possible, and has no bearing on the difficulty or ease of life's formation elsewhere.
the existance of extremophiles here on earth, and the recent creation of 'proto-life' from inorganic materials show that recognizable life on earth is but one of many potential paths.

Actually yes you can.

The fact that we are hear to debate about it show's the truth of that matter quite clearly ..

No. It just means we're talking about it. Our talking about the possibility of life on other planets, doesn't mean there is no other life on other planets. How do you know there's not life forms on some planet around Alpha Centari, discussing the possiblility of life on other planets?

You, are ASSUMING, our planet is the only one with advanced life.. because it's the only one -----we------ know about.

There could be 100s, 1000s, or millions of planets with advanced life. juuuuust over our (( Figerative)) Horizon. For all we know... we're in the 'back woods Alabama' part of the Galexy, where advanced life seldom goes. (( and if you watch CNN for about 10 minutes. You'd understand why.)) The galaxy could be absolutely TEAMING with advanced life, that just doesn't' come here.

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Took 2 seconds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213422/ ... planet.htm

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Took 2 seconds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213422/ ... planet.htm

Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Took 2 seconds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213422/ ... planet.htm

Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You mean a different planet isn't earth?!?!??!??!! REALLY?

lol read the article. It's in the 'Goldylocks zone" that could inhabit life. It's got a cooler star... but the planet is closer too it.

Sort of like.. if you're out side at night.. and there's a 50 foot bondfire.... you can "be warm" 50 feet back from it.. but if the fire is campfire size.. you can be 5 feet from it and be just as warm.

Come on man. Your 'fact' was busted with literally 2 seconds of internet search. We HAVE observed other planets in the habitable zone. I found one in 2 seconds for you (( it actually mentions more than one in the article)).

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:um.. No?

Earth is one of billions and billions of planets in the 'habitable zone" for "EARTH TYPE" life. We find new ones all the time. We just haven't gone to planets with life (( as we know it)) yet. This is basic 'black swan theory". You're going, "I've never seen a black swan. They don't exist" and I go "They have black swans in australia. It's far away, but they do exists, insite of you not seeing them yet."

Also, human perception, doesn't define universal fact. Just because we can't see far enough to determine life on other planets does --not-- mean there is none. Our own sensory range is only a fraction of what there is.

That's like saying "I can't see California from here. There's no life there." There's plenty of life in CA. My lack of ability to see it doesnt' mean it's not there.

Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Took 2 seconds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213422/ ... planet.htm

Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You mean a different planet isn't earth?!?!??!??!! REALLY?

lol read the article. It's in the 'Goldylocks zone" that could inhabit life. It's got a cooler star... but the planet is closer too it.

Sort of like.. if you're out side at night.. and there's a 50 foot bondfire.... you can "be warm" 50 feet back from it.. but if the fire is campfire size.. you can be 5 feet from it and be just as warm.

Come on man. Your 'fact' was busted with literally 2 seconds of internet search. We HAVE observed other planets in the habitable zone. I found one in 2 seconds for you (( it actually mentions more than one in the article)).

I've pointed out the two most glaring problems ..

The sun around which that planet is .. is a dif temp .. (ergo not the same)

The planet has a year that is literally 60 days .. (ergo not the same)

There are many other differences from which I read.

Ergo .. its not the same as how the Earth is situated .. Sorry if that hurts your feelings .. again show me a planet that is how the earth is situated around its star .. (same things please)

EDIT : The planet is 3.6 times larger then the earth .. do you even know how much that alone would change life if it could develope on that planet as compared to us ?

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

Took 2 seconds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213422/ ... planet.htm

Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You mean a different planet isn't earth?!?!??!??!! REALLY?

lol read the article. It's in the 'Goldylocks zone" that could inhabit life. It's got a cooler star... but the planet is closer too it.

Sort of like.. if you're out side at night.. and there's a 50 foot bondfire.... you can "be warm" 50 feet back from it.. but if the fire is campfire size.. you can be 5 feet from it and be just as warm.

Come on man. Your 'fact' was busted with literally 2 seconds of internet search. We HAVE observed other planets in the habitable zone. I found one in 2 seconds for you (( it actually mentions more than one in the article)).

I've pointed out the two most glaring problems ..

The sun around which that planet is .. is a dif temp .. (ergo not the same)

The planet has a year that is literally 60 days .. (ergo not the same)

There are many other differences from which I read.

Ergo .. its not the same as how the Earth is situated .. Sorry if that hurts your feelings .. again show me a planet that is how the earth is situated around its star .. (same things please)

EDIT : The planet is 3.6 times larger then the earth .. do you even know how much that alone would change life if it could develope on that planet as compared to us ?

None of that matters. You said 'We're the only planet that we know about that could support life. Therefore, it's proof of Destiny."

I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!"

Well no duh. It's still a planet in the habitable zone that can support life. There fore your 'Reason" that you think 'Proves" Destiny is false. We HAVE observed other planets in the habitble zone.

Different stars have different habitable zones. Cooler stars will have that zone closer in. Hotter stars. *GASP* Will have them further out.

Sorry to pop ya bubble man but your one 'fact' that you claimed proved destiny is nothing of the sort. As pointed out once, just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... and you pushed and said "Show me one" and I did. *shrugs*

So... again. Show me something you think PROVES destiny.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!".

Wrong.

I asked mearly for a planet like earth. Youve shown me soem that are "similar" to earth. But not quite similar enough ..

3.6times the size of earth .. a star that is 1800 degree's cooler then the earth's star .. a 60 day year ..

Could it support life ? You say yes .. I say no .. due to the immense differences ..

The proof will come if / when we find life. on other planets .. Not your symantic's nor mine .

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!".

Wrong.

I asked mearly for a planet like earth. Youve shown me soem that are "similar" to earth. But not quite similar enough ..

3.6times the size of earth .. a star that is 1800 degree's cooler then the earth's star .. a 60 day year ..

Could it support life ? You say yes .. I say no .. due to the immense differences ..

The proof will come if / when we find life. on other planets .. Not your symantic's nor mine .

So life on other planets can only exist if we observe them? That's a pretty egocentric take on things.

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!".

Wrong.

I asked mearly for a planet like earth. Youve shown me soem that are "similar" to earth. But not quite similar enough ..

3.6times the size of earth .. a star that is 1800 degree's cooler then the earth's star .. a 60 day year ..

Could it support life ? You say yes .. I say no .. due to the immense differences ..

The proof will come if / when we find life. on other planets .. Not your symantic's nor mine .

No.. You said

"Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands .."

It's right up the page Lew.

I showed you some in the habital zone.

Your argument now has changed to "We've not been visited by extraterrestrial life, there fore there is none" Which is quite different and again proves nothing. Just because you've not seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're changing your criteria as we go and you're disproved. Why does a planet have to be 'EARTH LIKE" To fit the catagory? If it can support life, it can support life. *Shrugs* You haven't stipulated "CLASS M planets with bipedal life forms roughly 2 meters in height. You know. STAR TREK LIFE" You said there were no planets in the habital zone that we've found.

You were wrong. I showed you some. Are they different from earth? Sure. All planets that aren't earth, are different from earth. That's not the point.

Your "poof of destiny" is nothing of the sort.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!".

Wrong.

I asked mearly for a planet like earth. Youve shown me soem that are "similar" to earth. But not quite similar enough ..

3.6times the size of earth .. a star that is 1800 degree's cooler then the earth's star .. a 60 day year ..

Could it support life ? You say yes .. I say no .. due to the immense differences ..

The proof will come if / when we find life. on other planets .. Not your symantic's nor mine .

No.. You said

"Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands .."

It's right up the page Lew.

I showed you some in the habital zone.

Your argument now has changed to "We've not been visited by extraterrestrial life, there fore there is none" Which is quite different and again proves nothing. Just because you've not seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're changing your criteria as we go and you're disproved. Why does a planet have to be 'EARTH LIKE" To fit the catagory? If it can support life, it can support life. *Shrugs* You haven't stipulated "CLASS M planets with bipedal life forms roughly 2 meters in height. You know. STAR TREK LIFE" You said there were no planets in the habital zone that we've found.

You were wrong. I showed you some. Are they different from earth? Sure. All planets that aren't earth, are different from earth. That's not the point.

Your "poof of destiny" is nothing of the sort.

I get it your mad because they are not close enough to earth to have life already on them .. with a planet that big .. rotating that fast around a start that is 1800 degree's cooler then the sun .. as I'm sure other things which they have yet not published on the planet .. are due to the reasons their is no life on that planet.

Again .. its not the same .. close yes .. but the star is not close enough to the sun .. the planet is not close to the size of the earth .. its rotation around the sun is beyond to fast ..

I am not asking for an "earth" duplicate .. but the fact remains .. you have shown me nothing sept your hopes .. which you are basing your debate upon.

I've actually debated the aspects of the planet you brought up .. and you sit there trying to argue rather then going point for point in a debate about the given subject matter .

That is what is known as a loss .. sorry for you ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I said "nu uh!"

You said "Oh yeah? Show me a planet we've found that could support life"

So I did... I went "here's a couple"

And now you're gong "That planet's not earth!".

Wrong.

I asked mearly for a planet like earth. Youve shown me soem that are "similar" to earth. But not quite similar enough ..

3.6times the size of earth .. a star that is 1800 degree's cooler then the earth's star .. a 60 day year ..

Could it support life ? You say yes .. I say no .. due to the immense differences ..

The proof will come if / when we find life. on other planets .. Not your symantic's nor mine .

No.. You said

"Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands .."

It's right up the page Lew.

I showed you some in the habital zone.

Your argument now has changed to "We've not been visited by extraterrestrial life, there fore there is none" Which is quite different and again proves nothing. Just because you've not seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're changing your criteria as we go and you're disproved. Why does a planet have to be 'EARTH LIKE" To fit the catagory? If it can support life, it can support life. *Shrugs* You haven't stipulated "CLASS M planets with bipedal life forms roughly 2 meters in height. You know. STAR TREK LIFE" You said there were no planets in the habital zone that we've found.

You were wrong. I showed you some. Are they different from earth? Sure. All planets that aren't earth, are different from earth. That's not the point.

Your "poof of destiny" is nothing of the sort.

I get it your mad because they are not close enough to earth to have life already on them .. with a planet that big .. rotating that fast around a start that is 1800 degree's cooler then the sun .. as I'm sure other things which they have yet not published on the planet .. are due to the reasons their is no life on that planet.

Again .. its not the same .. close yes .. but the star is not close enough to the sun .. the planet is not close to the size of the earth .. its rotation around the sun is beyond to fast ..

I am not asking for an "earth" duplicate .. but the fact remains .. you have shown me nothing sept your hopes .. which you are basing your debate upon.

I've actually debated the aspects of the planet you brought up .. and you sit there trying to argue rather then going point for point in a debate about the given subject matter .

That is what is known as a loss .. sorry for you ..

You're seriously deluding yourself Lew. You asked for a planet in the habitable zone. I've shown you the quote.

You can read up the page. It's still there.

I showed you one in the habitable zone. Not found by me.. but by you know... Scientists.. that know what they're talking about. Not guy's chillin' on a role playing game board. THEY say that life can exist on it. It's YOU that don't like it. You say it's too big. Clearly, Scientists disagree. You say it's too far, or not far enough. Scientists say that doesnt matter.

What YOU are doing is going. "Earth is like THIS... the planet you showed isn't exactly the same"

That's like going "We live on LAND, PepsiJedi.... we couldn't live in WATER.. DUH!" but.. fish live in water. crabs, ect 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of animals live in water. it's different, but it still works for them. Because.. they've evolved to live in water.

Just because you haven't seen them with your eyes. Doesn't mean life couldn't have evolved differently there.

Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

Thusly, your 'reasoning for destiny' is proven wrong. The fact that the planet is different from earth, doesn't mean it could NOT support life. the bottom of the ocean supports life, it's unlike the land we live on, but it still happens.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

I said to find me a planet like earth ..

1) - Your planet is not like earth 3.6times larger then the earth .. they have no clue about its habitat other then it "could" be habitable .. or it could not be habitable .. its not the same ..

2) - The planet rotats its star in 60 days .. its on the Closer end of the habitable zone known as the "Goldilocks" zone. Which means its not situated where the earth is .. again its not the same ..

3) - You found a "similar" planet .. similar yes .. the same no .. far .. VERY .. far off from even being the same ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

I said to find me a planet like earth ..

1) - Your planet is not like earth 3.6times larger then the earth .. they have no clue about its habitat other then it "could" be habitable .. or it could not be habitable .. its not the same ..

2) - The planet rotats its star in 60 days .. its on the Closer end of the habitable zone known as the "Goldilocks" zone. Which means its not situated where the earth is .. again its not the same ..

3) - You found a "similar" planet .. similar yes .. the same no .. far .. VERY .. far off from even being the same ..

Well perhaps you need to explain what you mean by like Earth, since a planet that can be inhabited by life is what people tend to think when they hear 'like Earth', rather than 'must be the same size, gravity, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, human-consumable lifeforms, orbiting only a G class star with an orbital period of 365.24 Earth Days'.

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

I said to find me a planet like earth ..

1) - Your planet is not like earth 3.6times larger then the earth .. they have no clue about its habitat other then it "could" be habitable .. or it could not be habitable .. its not the same ..

2) - The planet rotats its star in 60 days .. its on the Closer end of the habitable zone known as the "Goldilocks" zone. Which means its not situated where the earth is .. again its not the same ..

3) - You found a "similar" planet .. similar yes .. the same no .. far .. VERY .. far off from even being the same ..

Lewman you're changing stuff as you're going and sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA" You never asked for a planet 'Like earth" till after I proved you wrong on the other stuff. This isn't like a conversation on a street corner where you can simply go "I didn't say that, you can't prove it" Your text is still there.

Lenwen wrote:

First you said

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Then you said

Lenwen wrote: Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

So I showed you a link. that SHOWED A PLANET IN THE HABITABLE ZONE.

Then you change your tactic. You go from saying "There's none into the habitable zone" to 'That planet's different from earth'

Which as pointed out in your quotes here... You never asked for. You said there were no planets in the habitable zone... I proved there were. THEN you change to "That planet is different from earth

Lenwen wrote:Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You didn't say "Earth is the only planet exactly like earth that we've found"

You said "No other planets in the habitable zone"

You then dodge and bob and weave talking about how the sun is a different temp ect, when that was ---never---- (( as shown by your own words, in this thread)) Part of the equasion. You didn't say 'Earth is the only planet exactly this far from our sun which is this big and this hot, there fore it's proof of destiny"

What you said... was

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Which is quite different.

Hopefully your OWN WORDS can prove you're wrong as clearly noone elses are. You changed your "Proof" half way through, when your "proof" was proven to have been wrong.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

I said to find me a planet like earth ..

1) - Your planet is not like earth 3.6times larger then the earth .. they have no clue about its habitat other then it "could" be habitable .. or it could not be habitable .. its not the same ..

2) - The planet rotats its star in 60 days .. its on the Closer end of the habitable zone known as the "Goldilocks" zone. Which means its not situated where the earth is .. again its not the same ..

3) - You found a "similar" planet .. similar yes .. the same no .. far .. VERY .. far off from even being the same ..

Lewman you're changing stuff as you're going and sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA" You never asked for a planet 'Like earth" till after I proved you wrong on the other stuff. This isn't like a conversation on a street corner where you can simply go "I didn't say that, you can't prove it" Your text is still there.

Lenwen wrote:

First you said

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Then you said

Lenwen wrote: Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

So I showed you a link. that SHOWED A PLANET IN THE HABITABLE ZONE.

Then you change your tactic. You go from saying "There's none into the habitable zone" to 'That planet's different from earth'

Which as pointed out in your quotes here... You never asked for. You said there were no planets in the habitable zone... I proved there were. THEN you change to "That planet is different from earth

Lenwen wrote:Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You didn't say "Earth is the only planet exactly like earth that we've found"

You said "No other planets in the habitable zone"

You then dodge and bob and weave talking about how the sun is a different temp ect, when that was ---never---- (( as shown by your own words, in this thread)) Part of the equasion. You didn't say 'Earth is the only planet exactly this far from our sun which is this big and this hot, there fore it's proof of destiny"

What you said... was

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Which is quite different.

Hopefully your OWN WORDS can prove you're wrong as clearly noone elses are. You changed your "Proof" half way through, when your "proof" was proven to have been wrong.

Actually my own words prove how right I am ..

Exact position .. means another planet with a 365 day rotation around its star .. not a 60 day rotation ..

Again I do not understand why you feel you are right .. when clearly I've stayed on topic .. an currently have to repeat myself over an over again for you to understand what I am saying ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Fact 1) It's in the habitable zone. As defined by scientists that, define such things.
Fact 2) Planet in a habitable zone, was what you claimed we had not found.
Fact 3) I found the article proving we had.

I said to find me a planet like earth ..

1) - Your planet is not like earth 3.6times larger then the earth .. they have no clue about its habitat other then it "could" be habitable .. or it could not be habitable .. its not the same ..

2) - The planet rotats its star in 60 days .. its on the Closer end of the habitable zone known as the "Goldilocks" zone. Which means its not situated where the earth is .. again its not the same ..

3) - You found a "similar" planet .. similar yes .. the same no .. far .. VERY .. far off from even being the same ..

Lewman you're changing stuff as you're going and sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA" You never asked for a planet 'Like earth" till after I proved you wrong on the other stuff. This isn't like a conversation on a street corner where you can simply go "I didn't say that, you can't prove it" Your text is still there.

Lenwen wrote:

First you said

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Then you said

Lenwen wrote: Again .. there are no other planets in the habital zone in the perfect situation upon where life has been found .

If you know something I do not please by all means show me / us all a link ?

until you do however .. my point stands ..

So I showed you a link. that SHOWED A PLANET IN THE HABITABLE ZONE.

Then you change your tactic. You go from saying "There's none into the habitable zone" to 'That planet's different from earth'

Which as pointed out in your quotes here... You never asked for. You said there were no planets in the habitable zone... I proved there were. THEN you change to "That planet is different from earth

Lenwen wrote:Their star is 1800 degrees cooler ..

Its closer to the star then the earth is to its sun ..

so many differences .. its not the same ..

You didn't say "Earth is the only planet exactly like earth that we've found"

You said "No other planets in the habitable zone"

You then dodge and bob and weave talking about how the sun is a different temp ect, when that was ---never---- (( as shown by your own words, in this thread)) Part of the equasion. You didn't say 'Earth is the only planet exactly this far from our sun which is this big and this hot, there fore it's proof of destiny"

What you said... was

Lenwen wrote: The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

After decades of looking .. still only the Earth remains the sole single absolute perfect planet in that habitable zone.

In all of the universe ..

That alone show's me that (among various other things) the earth is in fact on a pre set course ..

Which is quite different.

Hopefully your OWN WORDS can prove you're wrong as clearly noone elses are. You changed your "Proof" half way through, when your "proof" was proven to have been wrong.

Actually my own words prove how right I am ..

Exact position .. means another planet with a 365 day rotation around its star .. not a 60 day rotation ..

Again I do not understand why you feel you are right .. when clearly I've stayed on topic .. an currently have to repeat myself over an over again for you to understand what I am saying ..

Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life..."

"EXACT PERFECT POSITION AROUND -------------IT's STAR----------------- to form life.

That position, is different for different stars and different planets Lewman. You're simply wrong and just screaming into the night. More over you're clearly wrong and are basing your argument on "We haven't seen it so it can't exists" which is moronic. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to point it out to you. You don't care. You're just arguing to argue.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life....

Lenwen wrote:The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

And I've not changed my stance ..

60 day rotation around a star 1800 degrees cooler .. is not the say position as the earth is 365 day rotation around an 1800 degree hotter star ..

No matter how you want to type in big letters ..

Sorry my friend ..

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life....

Lenwen wrote:The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

And I've not changed my stance ..

60 day rotation around a star 1800 degrees cooler .. is not the say position as the earth is 365 day rotation around an 1800 degree hotter star ..

No matter how you want to type in big letters ..

Sorry my friend ..

Scientists, alot smarter than you, say it is. No matter your unfounded denial.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life....

Lenwen wrote:The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

And I've not changed my stance ..

60 day rotation around a star 1800 degrees cooler .. is not the say position as the earth is 365 day rotation around an 1800 degree hotter star ..

No matter how you want to type in big letters ..

Sorry my friend ..

Scientists, alot smarter than you, say it is. No matter your unfounded denial.

Be that as it may ..

How do you know they are smarter then me ?

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life....

Lenwen wrote:The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

And I've not changed my stance ..

60 day rotation around a star 1800 degrees cooler .. is not the say position as the earth is 365 day rotation around an 1800 degree hotter star ..

No matter how you want to type in big letters ..

Sorry my friend ..

Scientists, alot smarter than you, say it is. No matter your unfounded denial.

Be that as it may ..

How do you know they are smarter then me ?

You've proven that many times over to a very conclusive level of certainty.

Great topic closing soon in a thread near you.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Because you've never said 'exact position'. lol You said "The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life....

Lenwen wrote:The fact that the earth .. and no other planet in the universe to date .. is in the exact perfect position around its star to form life...

And I've not changed my stance ..

60 day rotation around a star 1800 degrees cooler .. is not the say position as the earth is 365 day rotation around an 1800 degree hotter star ..

No matter how you want to type in big letters ..

Sorry my friend ..

Scientists, alot smarter than you, say it is. No matter your unfounded denial.

Be that as it may ..

How do you know they are smarter then me ?

You've proven that many times over to a very conclusive level of certainty.

People on this site take themselves entirely too serious ..

Apperantly one can not even joke around with them .. even if its at yourself .. haha

It came from lewman insisting that we are all destined to do what we're destined to do, (( And thusly you can't mess up a time stream, because if you went back in time and killed Hitler, some other kid would raise in his place to form the Nazi's and if you killed that kid, a different one would rise in his place and form the nazi's as destiny is set and unchangeable)) and that he had proof of Destiny. I asked how he could possibly prove destiny and he said 'Because we're the only planet with life in the entire universe'.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It came from lewman insisting that we are all destined to do what we're destined to do, (( And thusly you can't mess up a time stream, because if you went back in time and killed Hitler, some other kid would raise in his place to form the Nazi's and if you killed that kid, a different one would rise in his place and form the nazi's as destiny is set and unchangeable)) and that he had proof of Destiny. I asked how he could possibly prove destiny and he said 'Because we're the only planet with life in the entire universe'.

Guess this --> lewman <-- is your way of instigating me ?

Coke monk ?

pre-destination is a 'cheat code' to allow single timeline time travel without the danger of the "i stepped on a butterfly' effect destroying your original history.

to sum up so far:

one timeline, mutable - time travel opens up infinite chances to erase your own history. players are overwritten as well by any change made by a villan and villans can be overwritten by players, allowing 'retroactive instant wins' and 'undo buttons'.

one timeline, predestined - time travel cannot change flow of history...players are railroaded and cannot effect the plot.\

diverging timeline - creates seperate universe, no need to stop a time travelling villan.

Ninjabunny wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It came from lewman insisting that we are all destined to do what we're destined to do, (( And thusly you can't mess up a time stream, because if you went back in time and killed Hitler, some other kid would raise in his place to form the Nazi's and if you killed that kid, a different one would rise in his place and form the nazi's as destiny is set and unchangeable)) and that he had proof of Destiny. I asked how he could possibly prove destiny and he said 'Because we're the only planet with life in the entire universe'.

Guess this --> lewman <-- is your way of instigating me ?

Coke monk ?

Or a miss spelling honestly Len let's keep our personal thoughts on destiny outta this thread you started on the idea of time travel books and let's get back to talking about that Time travel books and why we do or do not like them.

In this case it was just an honest misspelling.

Ninjabunny wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It came from lewman insisting that we are all destined to do what we're destined to do, (( And thusly you can't mess up a time stream, because if you went back in time and killed Hitler, some other kid would raise in his place to form the Nazi's and if you killed that kid, a different one would rise in his place and form the nazi's as destiny is set and unchangeable)) and that he had proof of Destiny. I asked how he could possibly prove destiny and he said 'Because we're the only planet with life in the entire universe'.

Guess this --> lewman <-- is your way of instigating me ?

Coke monk ?

Or a miss spelling honestly Len let's keep our personal thoughts on destiny outta this thread you started on the idea of time travel books and let's get back to talking about that Time travel books and why we do or do not like them.

How do you miss spell some one's name .. when you quote them multiple times .. and their posts are right by yours with your name on it ?

I do not think anyone on this site is that ignorant .. to miss spell a name .. on "accident" multiple times ..

Lenwen wrote:

Ninjabunny wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It came from lewman insisting that we are all destined to do what we're destined to do, (( And thusly you can't mess up a time stream, because if you went back in time and killed Hitler, some other kid would raise in his place to form the Nazi's and if you killed that kid, a different one would rise in his place and form the nazi's as destiny is set and unchangeable)) and that he had proof of Destiny. I asked how he could possibly prove destiny and he said 'Because we're the only planet with life in the entire universe'.

Guess this --> lewman <-- is your way of instigating me ?

Coke monk ?

Or a miss spelling honestly Len let's keep our personal thoughts on destiny outta this thread you started on the idea of time travel books and let's get back to talking about that Time travel books and why we do or do not like them.

How do you miss spell some one's name .. when you quote them multiple times .. and their posts are right by yours with your name on it ?

I do not think anyone on this site is that ignorant .. to miss spell a name .. on "accident" multiple times ..

Because I wasn't quoting you. When I do, I use the quote function and just cut and paste the quote brackets. In this case I was replying to someone else. *Shrugs* If I was going to call you names. I'd actually call you names. In this case it was me not caring, and "Lewman" sounding like "Newman" which is a real name. "Lenwen" Didn't. So with out your name on the page I made a mistake.

Sorry if you're offended by it. It wasn't intentional. I can only offer my honest apology if you were offended. I may not agree with ya, man, but I'm not going to make up some weak "name" to call you like a 8 year old.

Again, sorry if it hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

As a side note, the preview for the next rifter says that your time travel rules will be in an article there.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:As a side note, the preview for the next rifter says that your time travel rules will be in an article there.

Which rifter did you say ?

Ummm the next one. # 56. Due out in October/November.

"Rifts® in space. The orbital communities and weirdness, by O.J. Pinckert.
Beyond the Supernatural: Tainted Martyr P.C.C. by Steven Dawes.
Nightbane®: Dark Days Chronicles Four – short story by Jeremy M. Hutchins.
For all game settings – Time Travel rules by Greg Spivey and Jason Smith.
News and coming attractions.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Ummm the next one. # 56. Due out in October/November.

"Rifts® in space. The orbital communities and weirdness, by O.J. Pinckert.
Beyond the Supernatural: Tainted Martyr P.C.C. by Steven Dawes.
Nightbane®: Dark Days Chronicles Four – short story by Jeremy M. Hutchins.
For all game settings – Time Travel rules by Greg Spivey and Jason Smith.
News and coming attractions.

Ty very much

NP. It's the last one in my subscription. I'll need to re-up after that

Lenwen wrote:I have been wondering for quite a while now Rifts is a tear in the space and TIME of the fabric of reality .. We have multiple dimensions .. which can be seen by the dimension books. Why has Kevin not even even hinted at ever using this VERY sweet gaming idea for a new expansion of books ?

The limits on the possabilities for THAT .. expansion of books is just beyond anything currently put out by Palladium. So my question is simply put .. Why does Palladium not utilize this HUGE resource an put out a book like for it ?

The biggest problem I can see with any type of time travel book is the HUGE arguments it will cause. A player like me who can think nasty, would screw up a GMs plans very quickly. For example: The players are traveling back in time to stop a demon from destroying Lazlo, they somehow know it will happen and can only stop it by going into the past, the GM has a 4-5 hour campaign all worked out. Then one player decides to go back in time further to when the demon was an infant. He kills the demon infant, this prevents it from being a threat and the game is over.

Another is the "Grandfather Clause" Basically if you went back in time and killed your grandfather before you were born, than your father wasn't born and so you were not born. BUT here's the thing... if you were not born than how did you go back in time to kill your grandpa???

This could be applied to most games, for example:
The characters are hired to protect a town from the CS or whatever. Knowing they can’t win in a straight fight the go back in time and change something to prevent the attack. They then return to the present, and ask the town leaders for their pay. Only to learn no one in town knows what they are talking about! Since they prevented the attack in the past, BEFORE they were hired, there was no threat to the town WHEN they were hired, so they were not hired in the first place. And around and around we go. As for being paid in advance few towns would do that at least not all the pay, just in case the players decided to not do the job.

bigwhitehound wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I have been wondering for quite a while now Rifts is a tear in the space and TIME of the fabric of reality .. We have multiple dimensions .. which can be seen by the dimension books. Why has Kevin not even even hinted at ever using this VERY sweet gaming idea for a new expansion of books ?

The limits on the possabilities for THAT .. expansion of books is just beyond anything currently put out by Palladium. So my question is simply put .. Why does Palladium not utilize this HUGE resource an put out a book like for it ?

The biggest problem I can see with any type of time travel book is the HUGE arguments it will cause. A player like me who can think nasty, would screw up a GMs plans very quickly. For example: The players are traveling back in time to stop a demon from destroying Lazlo, they somehow know it will happen and can only stop it by going into the past, the GM has a 4-5 hour campaign all worked out. Then one player decides to go back in time further to when the demon was an infant. He kills the demon infant, this prevents it from being a threat and the game is over.

Another is the "Grandfather Clause" Basically if you went back in time and killed your grandfather before you were born, than your father wasn't born and so you were not born. BUT here's the thing... if you were not born than how did you go back in time to kill your grandpa???

This could be applied to most games, for example:
The characters are hired to protect a town from the CS or whatever. Knowing they can’t win in a straight fight the go back in time and change something to prevent the attack. They then return to the present, and ask the town leaders for their pay. Only to learn no one in town knows what they are talking about! Since they prevented the attack in the past, BEFORE they were hired, there was no threat to the town WHEN they were hired, so they were not hired in the first place. And around and around we go. As for being paid in advance few towns would do that at least not all the pay, just in case the players decided to not do the job.

So the GM keeps the keys to the TARDIS. Besides... again doesn't matter if it is quantum events and not a linear time line. May end up sucking that way too. For example the GM sends you back in time you stop the demon but the time machine was specifically made so that it brought you back to your "time," unfortunately it also brings you back to your quantum line which is the one where you didn't go back, so nothing has changed. Of course it is just as bad the other way, you go back and stop the demon except on your return instead of turning left some guy in the NGR turned right and someone Oni in Japan cast fireball instead of call lightning, etc... when you return the demon was indeed stopped but so much else changed. Each of those other events had NOTHING to do with each other they were just possible choices that happened and they didn't even necessarily have anything to do with the differences when you return... but other decisions of other people did. Problem with this one... with all the finite choices of all of the people and all the different directions that nature can go it produces infinite parallel quantum dimensions, so your almost guaranteed never to get home... even if you don't step on that butterfly.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

bigwhitehound wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I have been wondering for quite a while now Rifts is a tear in the space and TIME of the fabric of reality .. We have multiple dimensions .. which can be seen by the dimension books. Why has Kevin not even even hinted at ever using this VERY sweet gaming idea for a new expansion of books ?

The limits on the possabilities for THAT .. expansion of books is just beyond anything currently put out by Palladium. So my question is simply put .. Why does Palladium not utilize this HUGE resource an put out a book like for it ?

The biggest problem I can see with any type of time travel book is the HUGE arguments it will cause. A player like me who can think nasty, would screw up a GMs plans very quickly. For example: The players are traveling back in time to stop a demon from destroying Lazlo, they somehow know it will happen and can only stop it by going into the past, the GM has a 4-5 hour campaign all worked out. Then one player decides to go back in time further to when the demon was an infant. He kills the demon infant, this prevents it from being a threat and the game is over.

Another is the "Grandfather Clause" Basically if you went back in time and killed your grandfather before you were born, than your father wasn't born and so you were not born. BUT here's the thing... if you were not born than how did you go back in time to kill your grandpa???

This could be applied to most games, for example:
The characters are hired to protect a town from the CS or whatever. Knowing they can’t win in a straight fight the go back in time and change something to prevent the attack. They then return to the present, and ask the town leaders for their pay. Only to learn no one in town knows what they are talking about! Since they prevented the attack in the past, BEFORE they were hired, there was no threat to the town WHEN they were hired, so they were not hired in the first place. And around and around we go. As for being paid in advance few towns would do that at least not all the pay, just in case the players decided to not do the job.

So the GM keeps the keys to the TARDIS. Besides... again doesn't matter if it is quantum events and not a linear time line. May end up sucking that way too. For example the GM sends you back in time you stop the demon but the time machine was specifically made so that it brought you back to your "time," unfortunately it also brings you back to your quantum line which is the one where you didn't go back, so nothing has changed. Of course it is just as bad the other way, you go back and stop the demon except on your return instead of turning left some guy in the NGR turned right and someone Oni in Japan cast fireball instead of call lightning, etc... when you return the demon was indeed stopped but so much else changed. Each of those other events had NOTHING to do with each other they were just possible choices that happened and they didn't even necessarily have anything to do with the differences when you return... but other decisions of other people did. Problem with this one... with all the finite choices of all of the people and all the different directions that nature can go it produces infinite parallel quantum dimensions, so your almost guaranteed never to get home... even if you don't step on that butterfly.

i love this type of stuff

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

bigwhitehound wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I have been wondering for quite a while now Rifts is a tear in the space and TIME of the fabric of reality .. We have multiple dimensions .. which can be seen by the dimension books. Why has Kevin not even even hinted at ever using this VERY sweet gaming idea for a new expansion of books ?

The limits on the possabilities for THAT .. expansion of books is just beyond anything currently put out by Palladium. So my question is simply put .. Why does Palladium not utilize this HUGE resource an put out a book like for it ?

The biggest problem I can see with any type of time travel book is the HUGE arguments it will cause. A player like me who can think nasty, would screw up a GMs plans very quickly. For example: The players are traveling back in time to stop a demon from destroying Lazlo, they somehow know it will happen and can only stop it by going into the past, the GM has a 4-5 hour campaign all worked out. Then one player decides to go back in time further to when the demon was an infant. He kills the demon infant, this prevents it from being a threat and the game is over.

Another is the "Grandfather Clause" Basically if you went back in time and killed your grandfather before you were born, than your father wasn't born and so you were not born. BUT here's the thing... if you were not born than how did you go back in time to kill your grandpa???

This could be applied to most games, for example:
The characters are hired to protect a town from the CS or whatever. Knowing they can’t win in a straight fight the go back in time and change something to prevent the attack. They then return to the present, and ask the town leaders for their pay. Only to learn no one in town knows what they are talking about! Since they prevented the attack in the past, BEFORE they were hired, there was no threat to the town WHEN they were hired, so they were not hired in the first place. And around and around we go. As for being paid in advance few towns would do that at least not all the pay, just in case the players decided to not do the job.

So the GM keeps the keys to the TARDIS. Besides... again doesn't matter if it is quantum events and not a linear time line. May end up sucking that way too. For example the GM sends you back in time you stop the demon but the time machine was specifically made so that it brought you back to your "time," unfortunately it also brings you back to your quantum line which is the one where you didn't go back, so nothing has changed. Of course it is just as bad the other way, you go back and stop the demon except on your return instead of turning left some guy in the NGR turned right and someone Oni in Japan cast fireball instead of call lightning, etc... when you return the demon was indeed stopped but so much else changed. Each of those other events had NOTHING to do with each other they were just possible choices that happened and they didn't even necessarily have anything to do with the differences when you return... but other decisions of other people did. Problem with this one... with all the finite choices of all of the people and all the different directions that nature can go it produces infinite parallel quantum dimensions, so your almost guaranteed never to get home... even if you don't step on that butterfly.

i love this type of stuff

So do I! Just like Terminator used to cause me issues. I was always like, why did the Ts still come back if they destroyed the stuff. Then finally came to the conclusion that the chips and parts weren't where skynet and the Ts came from it just allowed cyberdyne to accelereate their creation and destroying them just put the time line back to the original. So Terminator time is very linear but it is quantum also because the introduction of the chip and arm basically created a quantum event that was later corrected. But we're only going down one timeline. Fun with TARDISs... "It's bigger on the inside!"

Kovoston wrote:Hey guys,

I just got an e-mail from Wayne. They are going to publish it!

Hey any updates on that publishing thing?

Strong bump Thom! I think Palladium has edged away from any serious approaches to time stuff (at least backward, sole-foreward doesn't cause problems, is like being in stasis) due to the difficulties of resolving all the causation paradoxes that would crop up.

Even Transdimensional isn't entirely clear. I could've sworn there was some -kill your grandfather- issue brought up though I can't seem to relocate it, but the head of Time Lords has a fixing spell and there is also a technological fix-ripper device too.

Still no clear answer visible on the effects of what happens if fixers do not intervene though, or even how long they have to do it.

Tor wrote:Strong bump Thom! I think Palladium has edged away from any serious approaches to time stuff (at least backward, sole-foreward doesn't cause problems, is like being in stasis) due to the difficulties of resolving all the causation paradoxes that would crop up.

Even Transdimensional isn't entirely clear. I could've sworn there was some -kill your grandfather- issue brought up though I can't seem to relocate it, but the head of Time Lords has a fixing spell and there is also a technological fix-ripper device too.

Still no clear answer visible on the effects of what happens if fixers do not intervene though, or even how long they have to do it.

Can't have paradoxes if it is a quantum timeline rather than linear.

The Sundance Kid rifted into the New West so time travel obviously happens but it is so easily game breaking they haven't expanded on it.