Drew, since you seem confused and offended by my posting style, I'm going to redo my last post all in big chunks, as you seem to prefer.
It will not net out ANY different, other than aesthetically.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:This is what I'm seeing, you continually asking more and more questions that have already been answered. Which is trying to make it seam like I didn't already answered the core of the question in my 1st post.. Which is a typical debating tactic here in these boards.
Simply said, all the PB games are individual games. And the rules from each are only canon to that individual game. To move a Rule from One Game Takes an
Act of GM.RMB quote....that is not relevant anymore, since the publication of RUE. Even so, it would take an
Act of GM to import rules from one game to another.
[[For a quote like this to be relevant it would need to be from a PB gamebook of the current canon.]]
As to the Darwin's World quote.....it is abnormal. Since I was making a statement that covered ALL games...let us consider the game Monopoly. All the Rules for that game is within the given instruction booklet. With no provision to look outside that booklet to look for canon rules for that game. The only game within the "boardgames or card game" type games that I know of that has directions to look outside the directions for canon rules for that game are the 'Munchkin' series of games. Even then, those rules are posted online and are optional. Additionally the rules for Munchkin do say that the owner of the game has final say about the rules. Which is not even in the canon text of the PB RPG games.)
The two quotes...they are examples of direct text directing the user to seek rules in places other than the game text. Which is what I said was needed.
Unless there is direct direction, I.e.: it literally says to do it, in one PB game to use the rules only found in another PB game, then the rules unique to some other game can not be canon in games not that game.
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.
Hello, the quotes you presented are a part of the text of the rules in those gamebooks. In other words, for those games with text to look outside that game's individual game books Is A Prat of That Game's Rules. Trying to present the same text to mean I'm wrong in two contradictory ways is a bit oxymoron.
Even so, following the directions to seek out rules from other games is also an
'Act of GM.'Native language & house rules comments...sorry brain fart...a different topic that people were trying to present their house rules as if they are canon rules.
The megavercial rules do not state they work the way you claim, that all the games canon rules are canon rules for all other of the PB games. The only text you presented is in one non-canon book (old canon may it be, it is still not in the current canon.)
What I've been stating is that there is no canon text to treat the canon text in one of the PB games, as canon text for a different PB game as a whole system level of the games. ---In other words,
There is no text about this, so the games follow the basic principle about games, that only canon rules for the game are found in that game's instruction book(s).
You did NOT answer the core of anything in your first post. Your first post says:
Rifts has no Rules for a char to Change their class. All the current *genralized" canon changing class Rules are a part of the PF RPG 2nd ed Game. The published rules are in the PF2 world nook, "The High Seas". And optional text posted in the "Cutting room Floor" section in this website. These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules.That doesn't answer any of my questions.
What it
does is to make me object to the bolded statement, because it's incorrect.
If you want to say I'm wrong about it being incorrect, then
you have to prove that house rules are required to use the PFRPG rules in Rifts, and you have not come close to doing that.
When you say stuff like
the rules from each are only canon to that individual game, all you're doing is rephrasing your premise, that "house rules are required to use PFRPG rules in Rifts."
You need to SUPPORT your claim, not just rephrase it.
You say the RMB quote isn't relevant, but you're wrong. YOUR is
the rules from each are only canon to that individual game, and that stance has absolutely nothing to do with what is currently canon in Rifts or any one specific RPG. You're making a blanket claim about the nature of games, and the nature of games has NOT changed between RMB and RUE.
If
the rules from each are only canon to that individual game is true now, then it was just as true when the RMB came out.
But your claim is NOT true, as the RMB quotes and the very nature of Darwin's World and other OGL games demonstrate.
If it was true that
the rules from each are only canon to that individual game, then Darwin's World would not use the rules from Dungeons & Dragons.
But Darwin's World DOES use the rules from D&D--without any specific text telling people to use the rules from D&D (contrary to your claims that the quote I pulled from Darwin's World direct you to. The only quote I pulled was "a post-apocalyptic role-playing game set in the wild inhospitable world of mankind's ruin.").
Your claim is untrue.
And this has been demonstrated.
It does NOT in fact take "an act of GM," any kind of house rule, to play Darwin's World with the core D&D rules; that's the intended nature of the game, even though this is not clearly stated in the Darwin's World rule book.
Similarly, it does NOT in fact take any kind of house rules to play Rifts using PFRPG rules, not unless the PFRPG rules conflict with the rules of Rifts.
The OGL and the Megaversal System are similar in this way; they apply as a default to multiple different games in different settings,
unless otherwise specified.
You want to talk about Monopoly, but that game isn't relevant for two reasons:
1. Your claim was that ALL games function a certain way, and I have pointed out that no, NOT all games function this way, using Darwin's World as my key example. Monopoly conforming to your expectations doesn't matter; an exception to your rule has already been established.
If you claimed "All animals are felines," and I pointed out that dogs are not felines, it wouldn't work for you to say "That's abnormal. Let us consider lions..."
All means All.
At this point, you need to revise your claim to "most games" or some similar tack, but "most games behave this way" doesn't matter for Rifts. Assuming that Rifts operates like Monopoly or other games would be a House Rule, unsupported by canon.
2. Monopoly is a board game, NOT a tabletop RPG. Not only is it not a TTRPG, it's also not part of a larget rules system that operates across a variety of games the way the OGL or Palladium's Megaversal System does.
You're comparing apples to horses.
You're also trying to claim that examples where the Rifts books direct people to use the rules from other games supports your claim that using rules from other games when not directed is a house rule, but that does not work logically.
There is a big difference between:
a) Examples of the text indicating an option to use rules from other games
and
b) proof that rules from other games can only ever be used when such text exists.
Direction to do x does NOT mean that x is only ever permissible when directly given that instruction.
I can break this down and explain it further if you really need me to, but you shouldn't need me to.
You're trying to make a big deal about the facts that Palladium never flat-out tells us the Megaversal Rules function across their different games as a default, that they're only NOT importable when there is a conflict, but you're cutting your own legs out from under yourself with that stance:
The rules never tell us that the Megaversal System works the way YOU claim either, that the rules from one game do NOT work in any of the other megaversal games.
You're claiming that
the rules from each are only canon to that individual game,
even though the rules never tell us that.
Then you're trying to say I'm wrong because there's nothing in canon verifying my take on how the Megaversal rules are intended to work, even though that objection applies just as much to your own stance.
The main difference is that I've made a case based on canon text as to why things work the way I say ( i.e., "All rules in megaversal games are usable with all other megaversal games, unless otherwise indicated") and you've based your own case on (paraphased) "all games work this way. Well, not all, but most..." and other such vagueries that are not supported in the slightest by canon.
Here, again, is the support in canon that indicates that the megaversal rules are usable by all megaversal games as a default, and are only NOT transferrable when there is some indication to the contrary:
Palladium tells us
All of Palladium's games use the same basic or fundamental set of rules and game terms. That means if you learn one Palladium Role-Playing Game, you can play ANY of them. That's right, any, because Palladium's game settings are all linked. Each represents a different world or reality in the Palladium Megaverse®. More than that, you can bring characters, magic, weapons and equipment from these other "game worlds" into Rifts® and other Palladium RPG settings. This creates a truly unparalleled Megaverse® of adventure and imagination no other pen and paper game system can provide.All of Palladium's games use the same basic or fundamental set of rules and game terms tells us that the games use the same rules. It could be argued that stuff like changing classes is "not fundamental" and "not basic," but such an argument and a case would have to be made, as there is no canon text telling us that those kinds of rules are NOT fundamental and/or basic.
What it comes down to is that "use the same basic or fundamental set of rules" seems much, much more compatible with "uses the same rules except as otherwise indicated" than "uses the same rules
only when indicated."
That means if you learn to play one Palladium Role-Playing Game, you can play ANY of them again best fits "if you learn to play one Palladium RPG, you can use the rules you've learned in ANY of the other Palladium RPGs except as otherwise indicated" than it fits "If you learn to play one Palladium RPG, you can play ANY of them, if and only if you learn the rules of the other Palladium game, and what the differences are between the two different games' rule."
Everything Palladium has said in canon about The Megaversal System is about compatibility and indicates compatibility as a default.
Nothing Palladium has said in canon about The Megaversal System is about incompatibility, nor indicates incompatibility as a default.
