What happens when a PC changes OCCs?

[Blackwater Sniper]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

I wouldn't be able to access some of my old "abilities" if I let my CDL lapse.

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

[Killer Cyborg]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

Yup.

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

Not in Palladium's rules. They seem to assume everybody practices enough to not get rusty.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

With both mutual skills and HP/etc., I just increase per level by the new class.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

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.

As per the published Changing class rues...the old Class skills are frozen and never advance again. Unless the char goes back to that

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

Not in the published canon rules. A GM might have his/her house rules about this.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

The advancements of the old class are frozen with the class change. Any PPE or ISP of the old class stay fixed at the level the char change their class at.
SDC, normally there are no per level advancement for SDC. It being raised only through aquiring skills.

HP, any advancements are done by the new class's scedual only. Some GMs might see it that HP advancements are only done after the char has pass the level of their old class.
FAIK the stats are not effected by changing class.

[Orin J.]

well, first the game master has to break out the spreadsheet.....

[Fenris2020]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

I wouldn't be able to access some of my old "abilities" if I let my CDL lapse.

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

The only canon rules for Rifts about it are for Juicers and 'Borgs. Otherwise, refer to the PF book Adventures of the High Seas. Skills not duplicated when you switch OCC remain frozen, as do all other abilities and so-on; a former Ley Line walker or the like can still buy new spells or learn them in some other way, but various magi naturally don't learn spells by levelling after switching.
You can only change your OCC once (some NPCs are immune to this limitation).

[ShadowLogan]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

I wouldn't be able to access some of my old "abilities" if I let my CDL lapse.

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

The only canon rules for Rifts about it are for Juicers and 'Borgs. Otherwise, refer to the PF book Adventures of the High Seas. Skills not duplicated when you switch OCC remain frozen, as do all other abilities and so-on; a former Ley Line walker or the like can still buy new spells or learn them in some other way, but various magi naturally don't learn spells by levelling after switching.
You can only change your OCC once (some NPCs are immune to this limitation).

Actually the Rifts City Rat OCCs also has rules that are found in the Bionics SB. Tattoo based OCCs in WB2 also have rules for changing class. They basically follow the PF model.

The PF Rules can also be found on the Cutting Room Floor.

[Fenris2020]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

I wouldn't be able to access some of my old "abilities" if I let my CDL lapse.

Magic knowledge would slowly disappear; if you don't practice you lose your touch.

What do you do about HP/SDC/MDC, PPE/ISP, or other stat modifiers?

The only canon rules for Rifts about it are for Juicers and 'Borgs. Otherwise, refer to the PF book Adventures of the High Seas. Skills not duplicated when you switch OCC remain frozen, as do all other abilities and so-on; a former Ley Line walker or the like can still buy new spells or learn them in some other way, but various magi naturally don't learn spells by levelling after switching.
You can only change your OCC once (some NPCs are immune to this limitation).

Actually the Rifts City Rat OCCs also has rules that are found in the Bionics SB. Tattoo based OCCs in WB2 also have rules for changing class. They basically follow the PF model.

The PF Rules can also be found on the Cutting Room Floor.

Good find on the City Rats.

[drewkitty ~..~]

[
Actually the Rifts City Rat OCCs also has rules that are found in the Bionics SB. Tattoo based OCCs in WB2 also have rules for changing class. They basically follow the PF model.

The PF Rules can also be found on the Cutting Room Floor.

Along with the other class specific changing class rules, they were designed for the classes they are for. For their specific situations.

As I said before there are optional Texts in the Cutting room Floor. The reason they are option is that they have never been published. Since PB has never published them in a book to make them official, they must be cool with them being optional.

Even after saying that, the texts posted in the Cuttingroom floor do not even pretend to be the full changing class rules. So presenting them as the full text is misrepresentation what the text in the cutting room floor ARE. To know what is different from the Full canon text and the ones posted in the cutting room floor is to actually read the full canon text in the PF High Seas book.

In other words, this text "The PF Rules can also be found on the Cutting Room Floor." is not true. You need to read the canon text to see what is true.

[Mack]

The Cold Blooded OCC (Merc Adventures, p20) also has some very basic rules for a preexisting character becoming that OCC.

[Axelmania]

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.

CB1p28 talked about Diabolists/Wizards 3rd level or lower to switch to TW but that's sort of a niche case like with becoming a Borg/Juicer which I think also had some custom rules for those OCCs somewhere (not sure about Crazy) and that thing about Sea Titans taking an OCC at 15th to supplement their RCC skills.

The specifying of 3rd level actually sort of implies you'd have problems doing it if 4th+

If not a complete ban it would probably revert to the PRPG rules (PF2 not existing at the time) of needing to spend 2-3 levels of XP, something you don't need to do if going TW from a low-level Wizard/Diabolist. The "free change benefit" is one that should logically extend to 15th Level Sea Titans too.

These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules.

Depending on how one interpret's RUE1's "Compatible with the entire Palladium Books® Megaverse" of course.

As per the published Changing class rues...the old Class skills are frozen and never advance again. Unless the char goes back to that

This is one major difference (the errata/Seas in 2nd ed) since in classic PRPG if you re-selected the same skill in your new OCC then it would unfreeze once you got the new OCC higher, and in the meantime you probably enjoy both OCC's bonus to that skill (if applicable)

there are optional Texts in the Cutting room Floor.
The reason they are option is that they have never been published.
Since PB has never published them in a book to make them official, they must be cool with them being optional.

This is a dichotomy I've never seen supported from Siembieda or otherwise.

RUE2 for example when stating "Palladium Online: www.palladiumbooks.com" doesn't say anything like "but this is less official because it's digital".

When it is actually optional/demoted in importance we tend to see disclaimers, like we do in most of the Rifter content.

The RUE Errata PDF for example, I think would be equally official even if they never actually did a later printing of RUE which incorporated those changes.

There's nothing magical about paper. If Palladium gave up paper distribution and only did PDF packaging of later books would that make them any less official?

Nor is there anything magical about PDFs over HTML

[Killer Cyborg]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

Rifts has no Rules for a char to Change their class.

Megaversal system, dude.
Let it go.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

Rifts has no Rules for a char to Change their class.

Megaversal system, dude.
Let it go.

Yes, each of the PB games uses the same basic game system. The game mechanics.
Because of this characters, equipment and rules can be easily imported between the games by individual GMs.

But they are all their own individual 'games.' As such, what is canon in one PB game is not canon in another PB game, unless it specificly says they do.
If they were all the 'same game', then there would be no need for things like Conversion Books.

If I was to follow your advice, I could say that rules that in DND ed5 are canon in Pathfinder, because they use the same basic system.

This was, almost violently, pointed out by another poster.

[Fenris2020]

In the real world you wouldn't lose all your old skills. Just because I went from a truck-driver to an accountant doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to drive. I would think those skills would be frozen. Only the skills common between the two would progress when the levels become equal.

Rifts has no Rules for a char to Change their class.

Megaversal system, dude.
Let it go.

Yes, each of the PB games uses the same basic game system. The game mechanics.
Because of this characters, equipment and rules can be easily imported between the games by individual GMs.

But they are all their own individual 'games.' As such, what is canon in one PB game is not canon in another PB game, unless it specificly says they do.
If they were all the 'same game', then there would be no need for things like Conversion Books.

If I was to follow your advice, I could say that rules that in DND ed5 are canon in Pathfinder, because they use the same basic system.

This was, almost violently, pointed out by another poster.

What post was... almost violent?
I'm failing to see it.
Perhaps we have a differing viewpoint of the term.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Since I was insulted by being called a lier when I said that the PB games used the same system (which was saying an empirical truth), yes, the poster that stepping over the line into attacking me. (Saying what someone said is a lie is saying that person is a lier. There is no way to BS your way out of that.) The only reason it wasn't physical violence is because it was attacks made with words.

Old saying changed to be true...
Sticks and Stones may break my Bones, but Words cut to the Heart.

[Killer Cyborg]

what is canon in one PB game is not canon in another PB game, unless it specificly says they do.

That is never stated anywhere.0

If they were all the 'same game', then there would be no need for things like Conversion Books.

Different editions of the same game can have conversion books/rules, but they're still the same game.
Hell, if there's a rule change within the same edition, there can be conversion rules/books.
There's no hard rule about what "conversion books" are or do, other than convert something.

The Rifts Conversion books exist because of setting differences, like the presence of boosted magic and/or Mega-Damage, NOT because general rules change between games.
Notice that the Rifts conversion books don't mention anything about converting the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs, for example.
This is because no such conversion is necessary; those rules work the same way in both settings.

If I was to follow your advice, I could say that rules that in DND ed5 are canon in Pathfinder, because they use the same basic system.

Are they part of the same megaversal system put out by the same company?
No.

[Axelmania]

Yes, each of the PB games uses the same basic game system. The game mechanics.
Because of this characters, equipment and rules can be easily imported between the games by individual GMs.

But they are all their own individual 'games.' As such, what is canon in one PB game is not canon in another PB game, unless it specificly says they do.

Isn't it more "their own individual settings/worlds" as opposed to rules?

It's not like Chi didn't exist on Rifts Earth prior to Mercs having an NPC with it.

Only setting-specific rules I can think of which explicitly differ between games would be:

1) MDC presence in Rifts/Robotech
2) SDC healing at a super-fast hourly basis in TMNT/N&SS
3) if you can draw PPE per melee round from ley lines
4) magic probs in Skraypers
5) psi problems in Wormwood

Maybe some other stuff too, but in each case we're talking about explicit contradictions in stats, not merely a lack of elaboration on certain rules details.

I'm still reasonably confident for example that the reference to children being able to see those using Astral Projection we see in reprints of that power post-BTS are still referring to the minority of children who enjoy See the Invisible for free during stressful situations, and not 100% of kids 100% of the time.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Isn't it more "their own individual settings/worlds" as opposed to rules?

For this question there is a simple answer...No. They are individual Games.

Each GAME has its own CORE BOOK. Form which to play That Game.

Yes, because they all use the same basic game system it is easy to forget that they are all different games.

Yes, PB gets lazy and just 'copy & pastes' old texts into new books. You can point out examples of this in all the different games' core books, and some of the source- & world books.

Enjoy all the different PB games.

[Kraynic]

Yes, PB gets lazy and just 'copy & pastes' old texts into new books. You can point out examples of this in all the different games' core books, and some of the source- & world books.

I suppose that is one reason I prefer playing "The Palladium Role Playing Game". Any errors are just all from within that particular system and setting, because there wasn't much else published to "copy & paste" from at that point.

[Blue_Lion]

As I recall skills of the old OCCget frozen still there but you can use them. - as per rules for changing class.
If the new occ has the same skill it does not change until it would be higher than the old.
PPE and ISP take the best higher of the two occs.
If you go by high seas use the best of the two occs for bonuses. If you go by cutting room floor they combine.

[Blue_Lion]

Since I was insulted by being called a lier when I said that the PB games used the same system (which was saying an empirical truth), yes, the poster that stepping over the line into attacking me. (Saying what someone said is a lie is saying that person is a lier. There is no way to BS your way out of that.) The only reason it wasn't physical violence is because it was attacks made with words.

Old saying changed to be true...
Sticks and Stones may break my Bones, but Words cut to the Heart.

The system is the same but their are setting specific tweaks. Basically some things might change between settings but the core rules stay the same. Hand to hand ninja in rifts japan is different than hand to hand ninja in ninjas and super spies.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The system is the same but their are setting specific tweaks. Basically some things might change between settings but the core rules stay the same. Hand to hand ninja in rifts japan is different than hand to hand ninja in ninjas and super spies.

Yes, all the games use the same basic game system. I agree with that.
Yes, there are rules tweaks between the different Games. I agree with that.

No, they are not all the same game.

[Axelmania]

basically the common system is whatever can coalesce between them without contradiction or conflict

[drewkitty ~..~]

To quote the Rifts Conversion Book 1r page 7

"These other worlds are not an official part of the Rifts game setting and are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of RPG rules."

To paraphrase that: they are a part of the rifts game, they are all different games that use the same basic RPG system.

In other words, to say that the different PB games are just parts of one game is a canon defying house rule.
If you are going to state your house rules, you should say they are your house rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

To quote the Rifts Conversion Book 1r page 7

"These other worlds are not an official part of the Rifts game setting and are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of RPG rules."

To paraphrase that: they are a part of the rifts game, they are all different games that use the same basic RPG system.

Yup.

In other words, to say that the different PB games are just parts of one game is a canon defying house rule.

But they ARE all part of the same basic rule set, and since there's no canon differentiation between which rules are part of the "basic rule set" and which rules are NOT part of the same basic set, technically anywhere any of us decide to draw the line is a house rule; none of us know for certain where KS intends the line to be drawn."
(In fact, I suspect that if we were to ask KS where the line is drawn, he'd have no idea what we were talking about, and just tell us to use whichever rules we want.)

But we know the following:
1. Palladium not infrequently directs us in one game to use the rules, characters, etc. from other Palladium games
2. NPCs in Rifts sometimes have more than one OCC, so it's possible for characters to have more than one OCC.
3. While there are no rules in Rifts specifically addressing changing OCCs, there ARE rules in PFRPG/Cutting Room Floor.
4. There is nothing to indicate that the Rifts characters with multiple OCCs used some kind of secret, unprinted Rifts rules for changing OCCs.
5. There is absolutely nothing in canon stating that the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs do NOT apply to Rifts.
6. The Rifts Conversion Book(s) say absolutely nothing about needing to convert multi-OCC characters to some kind of new Rifts rules for multi-OCCs, and there is nothing in the book converting those rules to some kind of different rule set for Rifts.
7. 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.
The bolded portion tells us that if you learn one of the games' rules, you can play ANY of them. Which only works if the rules are as a default transferrable between games. Otherwise, if you learn the Cold Weather Rules in PFRPG, but are playing a cold weather adventure in HU, you can't really play the game of Heroes Unlimited, at least not as fully as you can play PFRPG.

The only really logical conclusion is that the rules for changing classes in PFRPG--which are the only rules for general class changing in all of Palladium's rule system--apply to other settings such as Rifts, unless otherwise specified or indicated.
There is no specification or indication that the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs does NOT apply to Rifts, ergo they do.

[Killer Cyborg]

basically the common system is whatever can coalesce between them without contradiction or conflict

Bingo.

[drewkitty ~..~]

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.

Yes, GMs can easily import those rules for their games. So easy, to the point that the PB gamers tend to think that it is all one game.
I am sorry that people loose sight of this truth, but it is the truth.

Yes, this does mean that unique rules from one PB game, is no where being the canon rules for any other game.

Yes, there is a difference between what is canon for one game and what is canon for another game.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

How do you figure?

[Fenris2020]

To quote the Rifts Conversion Book 1r page 7

"These other worlds are not an official part of the Rifts game setting and are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of RPG rules."

To paraphrase that: they are a part of the rifts game, they are all different games that use the same basic RPG system.

Yup.

In other words, to say that the different PB games are just parts of one game is a canon defying house rule.

But they ARE all part of the same basic rule set, and since there's no canon differentiation between which rules are part of the "basic rule set" and which rules are NOT part of the same basic set, technically anywhere any of us decide to draw the line is a house rule; none of us know for certain where KS intends the line to be drawn."
(In fact, I suspect that if we were to ask KS where the line is drawn, he'd have no idea what we were talking about, and just tell us to use whichever rules we want.)

But we know the following:
1. Palladium not infrequently directs us in one game to use the rules, characters, etc. from other Palladium games
2. NPCs in Rifts sometimes have more than one OCC, so it's possible for characters to have more than one OCC.
3. While there are no rules in Rifts specifically addressing changing OCCs, there ARE rules in PFRPG/Cutting Room Floor.
4. There is nothing to indicate that the Rifts characters with multiple OCCs used some kind of secret, unprinted Rifts rules for changing OCCs.
5. There is absolutely nothing in canon stating that the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs do NOT apply to Rifts.
6. The Rifts Conversion Book(s) say absolutely nothing about needing to convert multi-OCC characters to some kind of new Rifts rules for multi-OCCs, and there is nothing in the book converting those rules to some kind of different rule set for Rifts.
7. 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.
The bolded portion tells us that if you learn one of the games' rules, you can play ANY of them. Which only works if the rules are as a default transferrable between games. Otherwise, if you learn the Cold Weather Rules in PFRPG, but are playing a cold weather adventure in HU, you can't really play the game of Heroes Unlimited, at least not as fully as you can play PFRPG.

The only really logical conclusion is that the rules for changing classes in PFRPG--which are the only rules for general class changing in all of Palladium's rule system--apply to other settings such as Rifts, unless otherwise specified or indicated.
There is no specification or indication that the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs does NOT apply to Rifts, ergo they do.

Eminently logical viewpoint.
Thank you.

[drewkitty ~..~]

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.

How do you figure?

To paraphrase what I've said before....
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.

This is the core idea of ALL games. Not just RPGs.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

How do you figure?

To paraphrase what I've said before....
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.

This is the core idea of ALL games. Not just RPGs.

I feel like you're simply restating your unsupported premise.
Worse than unsupported, it's demonstrably untrue as stated:

I have in my library of RPG books, a game called Darwin's World. It's "a post-apocalyptic role-playing game set in the wild inhospitable world of mankind's ruin."
Darwin's World uses the D20 rules, which are NOT included in this book nor any other Darwin's World game book.
It is a game in which NOT all the rules are found in the gamebooks of this game.
In fact, the game would be entirely unplayable without the core game books from an entirely different game.

Just for one example out of many possible examples.

[Killer Cyborg]

RMB 33 under Modern Weapon Proficiencies
The following rules can be applied to all of Palladium Books roleplaying games.

These rules were not present in PFRPG, yet we have in canon that these rules can be used for PFRPG.
Ergo, PFRPG does not include ALL the rules one might use when playing PFRPG.

RMB 113 under Mutant Characters From Other Games
Mutant animals other than dogs may be the creations of genetic manipulations at Lone Star. Players may use the basic mutant animal creation rules and animals from any of the TMNT role-playing and After The Bomb series of books to create different Lone Star mutants.
Rifts, TMNT, and After The Bomb are different games.
Rifts players are directed to use the rules from other games as one possibility when creating Rifts characters.
Ergo, Rifts does not include ALL the rules one might use when playing Rifts.

There are many more examples of this kind of thing in Palladium games.

Now, one might claim that these passages aren't talking about "rule for Rifts," but rather "rules from other Palladium games that the game-designers intend to be used with Rifts," but that's a distinction without any difference.
There is no meaningful difference between "There are no rule for changing OCCs in Rifts; the game makers intend for us to use the PFRPG rules for changing OCCs" and "The rules for Rifts characters changing OCCs are located in PFRPG book x, page y."

[drewkitty ~..~]

I feel like you're simply restating your unsupported premise.
Worse than unsupported, it's demonstrably untrue as stated:

And here is where you describe yourself. I wonder if it is to distract everyone from the way that everything supporting your position has been shown to be false? To 'spin things' so you don't look like you were wrong.

It has been you that has not look beyond your preconceptions of 'the way it should be' to look at what is actually said in the canon text. And clinging to your house rules as if they are the canon text, instead of the published text.
------------
KS those are nice quotes From the RMB (and the Darwin's World one) And thank you for confirming what I said earlier with them.

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.

But none of them say that all Rifts chars get a native language. Show me a citation for that in a Rifts book.
( In other words..put up or give up.)

Again, I am not saying that house rules are bad. I'm Saying that they should be presented as the House Rules that they are.

[Killer Cyborg]

I feel like you're simply restating your unsupported premise.
Worse than unsupported, it's demonstrably untrue as stated:

And here is where you describe yourself. I wonder if it is to distract everyone from the way that everything supporting your position has been shown to be false? To 'spin things' so you don't look like you were wrong.

It has been you that has not look beyond your preconceptions of 'the way it should be' to look at what is actually said in the canon text. And clinging to your house rules as if they are the canon text, instead of the published text.

You made a claim.
I addressed the claim.
Now you're "I'm Rubber, You're Glue"ing me.

If I'm wrong, demonstrate it.
If you can't demonstrate it, then by definition I'm not demonstrably wrong.
If you don't understand how I've demonstrated the incorrectness of your claim(s), I can go over it again.
If you think I don't understand your claims, feel free to rephrase them.

Just going "nuh-uh, YOU'RE wrong!" isn't doing anybody any good.
I'm taking the time to make logical arguments here, and you could at least try to return the favor.

KS those are nice quotes From the RMB (and the Darwin's World one) And thank you for confirming what I said earlier with them.

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.

Those quotes don't confirm what you said.
Do you need me to explain why not?
If so, just ask.

The quotes DO disprove the claims:
"All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules."

But none of them say that all Rifts chars get a native language. Show me a citation for that in a Rifts book.

Huh?
What's native language have to do with anything?

Again, I am not saying that house rules are bad. I'm Saying that they should be presented as the House Rules that they are.

And that's all I'm saying to you.
The official rules never state that PFRPG rules aren't applicable in Rifts.
The official rules never state that the Megaversal rule system works the way you claim.
Those are house rules you've made.
I've made the case for how we know that PFRPG rules are by default applicable to Rifts; you need to make a case that they're not, or you need to try to find holes in my argument.
Just repeating your premise isn't an argument for anything.

[drewkitty ~..~]

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).

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

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, 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.

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.

Support the bolded claim.

RMB quote....that is not relevant anymore, since the publication of RUE.

Incorrect, unless you think the fundamental nature of games and game rules--which you're claiming support you--have changed since RMB and RUE.
Your stance is:
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.

The RMB quote--along with the quote from Darwin's World, and many other potential examples--disproves your claim.

Even so, it would take an Act of GM to import rules from one game to another.

It requires an act of GM to play Rifts at all.
I don't know why you keep using that phrase--if it means anything of value, I'm not seeing it.
Maybe try rephrasing.

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.

Monopoly would only be relevant if your statement covered MOST games.
Since your statement makes a claim about ALL games, any exception disproves your claim.

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.

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.

[Examples of the text indicating an option to use rules from other games]
does NOT equal
[proof that rules from other games can only ever be used when such text exists].

Hello, the quotes you presented are a part of the text of the rules in those gamebooks.

The rules of Darwin's World don't tell you to use the rules of another game.
The only quote I took from that book was "a post-apocalyptic role-playing game set in the wild inhospitable world of mankind's ruin."
Your claim here is based on false information, and is a false claim.

The megaversal rules do not state they work the way you claim.

True. And they never state that they work in the way YOU claim.
But I've made my case for how we know that they DO work the way I've claimed, and you haven't poked any holes in my case.
Your case, on the other hand, that the rules work the way you claim, has various holes (see above and below).

That all the games canon rules are canon rules for all other of the PB games

Try "All rules in megaversal games are usable with all other megaversal games, unless otherwise indicated."
That might not be perfect phrasing, but it's closer to my stance.

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).

[/quote]

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.

[drewkitty ~..~]

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.

This was an example of a debating tactic which spelled out so. However, it mostly only done by people coming in in the middle of a discussion because they didn't read the whole topic and started with the latest post.

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.

Support the bolded claim.

Here is an variant of the above. Except that iw asks a question that is answered later in the same post.

RMB quote....that is not relevant anymore, since the publication of RUE.

Incorrect, unless you think the fundamental nature of games and game rules--which you're claiming support you--have changed since RMB and RUE.

Ahhh...the RMB is no longer canon. Why Because PB Published the new edition in RUE. I really hate it when I have to S P E L L things they should already know. When there is a new edition for a book the old book is now non-canon..

Your stance is:
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.

The RMB quote--along with the quote from Darwin's World, and many other potential examples--disproves your claim.

And because they are literally put into the canon text, as such they are expressly a part of the canon...As I said later in the post you were responding to. This is another thing I hate about the tactic of breaking up the thoughts into individual sentences to respond to. If the commenting poster comments to the thought as a whole they would find the answer to the 1st part of the through in a latter part of the thought.

Even so, it would take an Act of GM to import rules from one game to another.

It requires an act of GM to play Rifts at all.
I don't know why you keep using that phrase--if it means anything of value, I'm not seeing it.
Maybe try rephrasing.

Act of GM is a formal way of saying that a GM has to form a House Rule.

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.

Monopoly would only be relevant if your statement covered MOST games.

correction:"Since I was making a generalized statement..." and in what 99.999% of games would follow.

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.

[Examples of the text indicating an option to use rules from other games]
does NOT equal
[proof that rules from other games can only ever be used when such text exists].

The text commented on here was the answer to the one above that I mentioned. So you should of comments on them TOGETHER rather than separating them.
No, the text you quoted Did support my assertion that to consider rules from other games as canon for itself. Which you are trying to sidestep around the issue by try to disassociate the text from what I realy said.

Hello, the quotes you presented are a part of the text of the rules in those gamebooks.

The rules of Darwin's World don't tell you to use the rules of another game.
The only quote I took from that book was "a post-apocalyptic role-playing game set in the wild inhospitable world of mankind's ruin."
Your claim here is based on false information, and is a false claim.

Again you are breaking up the sentences of the whole thoughts to comment on just one part of the thought. Yes, it is a typical tactic of people who don't want to agree with he other poster by trying to make it look like each of the parts is flawed. But when taken as a Whole they for a compleat idea that you can't point out anything wrong with. I'm tired of this tactic.

The megaversal rules do not state they work the way you claim.

True. And they never state that they work in the way YOU claim.
But I've made my case for how we know that they DO work the way I've claimed, and you haven't poked any holes in my case.
Your case, on the other hand, that the rules work the way you claim, has various holes (see above and below).

That all the games canon rules are canon rules for all other of the PB games

Try "All rules in megaversal games are usable with all other megaversal games, unless otherwise indicated."
That might not be perfect phrasing, but it's closer to my stance.

Again you are breaking up the Thought as a whole.
a corrected thought line: "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." Yes this was do to a punctuation error on my part, but If it had bee read correctly commenter it would of been clear I was talking about the other posters VP in that paragraph.

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).

Palladium tells us [i]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, ......

That each of the PB games uses the same basic RPG system mechanices is not in dispute here. So your long windedness is just hot air meant to convence people that you VP is correct when all you did was say that all the PB games use the same basic RPG gaming system as their gaming system Three times. There was nothing in it that was even commenting about what I said.

Since it is obvious to me that there is an 'I can't be wrong' position on the other side of this, even bringing up what should the obvious truths and what the texts actually say won't change your mind.

Fin.

[Prysus]

But none of them say that all Rifts chars get a native language. Show me a citation for that in a Rifts book.

Huh?
What's native language have to do with anything?

Greetings and Salutations. This I believe extends from the Temporal Warriors thread, and the poster got confused which thread had that particular argument.

From what I can tell, the argument is that the rules must specifically state something for it to be canon, and everything else is a house rule.

So this isn't case of Palladium giving us 2 and 3, and someone saying 5 (addition) is the logical conclusion and someone else arguing that 6 is correct (multiplication), and then an argument over which is the better answer, but a situation of saying anything other than 2 and 3 is a house rule.

This, in some ways, is technically accurate, but the stance has the issue of using House Rule in a way that makes the term effectively meaningless, because it means humans can't walk or even breath unless there's a rule stating they can. And this may be considered an exaggeration, but the stance in the other thread is in the early RMB days (and similar books of that time) by default many people (such as ALL CS O.C.C., Operators, Rogue Scientists) are effectively mute and incapable of speech, unless they learn it as a Related or Secondary skill, and just because the book states they can learn "additional" languages doesn't mean they have any language to begin with because the book doesn't explicitly state they're capable of speech without special rules allowing it, and any inference from the rules is just a House Rule.

My main hope was to try and help explain the divide. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Fenris2020]

But none of them say that all Rifts chars get a native language. Show me a citation for that in a Rifts book.

Huh?
What's native language have to do with anything?

Greetings and Salutations. This I believe extends from the Temporal Warriors thread, and the poster got confused which thread had that particular argument.

From what I can tell, the argument is that the rules must specifically state something for it to be canon, and everything else is a house rule.

So this isn't case of Palladium giving us 2 and 3, and someone saying 5 (addition) is the logical conclusion and someone else arguing that 6 is correct (multiplication), and then an argument over which is the better answer, but a situation of saying anything other than 2 and 3 is a house rule.

This, in some ways, is technically accurate, but the stance has the issue of using House Rule in a way that makes the term effectively meaningless, because it means humans can't walk or even breath unless there's a rule stating they can. And this may be considered an exaggeration, but the stance in the other thread is in the early RMB days (and similar books of that time) by default many people (such as ALL CS O.C.C., Operators, Rogue Scientists) are effectively mute and incapable of speech, unless they learn it as a Related or Secondary skill, and just because the book states they can learn "additional" languages doesn't mean they have any language to begin with because the book doesn't explicitly state they're capable of speech without special rules allowing it, and any inference from the rules is just a House Rule.

My main hope was to try and help explain the divide. Farewell and safe journeys.

Yep.
That pretty much sums it up.
Logic and reason are beyond some people, apparently.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

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.

[Killer Cyborg]

[justify]

But none of them say that all Rifts chars get a native language. Show me a citation for that in a Rifts book.

Huh?
What's native language have to do with anything?

Greetings and Salutations. This I believe extends from the Temporal Warriors thread, and the poster got confused which thread had that particular argument.

From what I can tell, the argument is that the rules must specifically state something for it to be canon, and everything else is a house rule.

Which would mean "you can only use PFRPG rules in Rifts if/when the Rifts rules specifically say so" is a house rule, by that definition.
Which I've tried pointing out to Drew, but I don't feel like he's listening or understanding, no matter how many ways I rephrase.

So this isn't case of Palladium giving us 2 and 3, and someone saying 5 (addition) is the logical conclusion and someone else arguing that 6 is correct (multiplication), and then an argument over which is the better answer, but a situation of saying anything other than 2 and 3 is a house rule.

Yes.
The difference is that I feel I've made a solid case for how we know we're supposed to multiply, and how we know we're NOT supposed to add, whereas Drew has not.

This, in some ways, is technically accurate, but the stance has the issue of using House Rule in a way that makes the term effectively meaningless, because it means humans can't walk or even breath unless there's a rule stating they can. And this may be considered an exaggeration, but the stance in the other thread is in the early RMB days (and similar books of that time) by default many people (such as ALL CS O.C.C., Operators, Rogue Scientists) are effectively mute and incapable of speech, unless they learn it as a Related or Secondary skill, and just because the book states they can learn "additional" languages doesn't mean they have any language to begin with because the book doesn't explicitly state they're capable of speech without special rules allowing it, and any inference from the rules is just a House Rule.

Agreed.

[Blue_Lion]

We have book statements directing us to other lines books for information and rules in rifts.
The game while PF is a separate setting in rifts it does exist. IE their have stuff in rifts stated to come from PF. So the existence of PF is canon in Rifts. So rules that do not conflict with changes in rifts Exist.

Each PB game is a setting, while their are tweeks to each setting to make them work better almost all them exist in canon statements and NPCs in rifts. So they are part of the same game, just different settings. Like how Forgotten Relms, Dark Sun and Birthright where all settings in AD&D had specific tweeks to the settings but where the same game connected by Planescape and spell Jammer.

If I recall originally conversion book 1 even directed changing occs as an option to TWs.

They never tell us not to use the rules for other games in rifts and we have been at times direct us to rules in other lines for things not covered. Meaning we have a prescience for use of other games rules for what is not covered with no official rule not to. So its use would be in line with how we know the rules work.

[Killer Cyborg]

We have book statements directing us to other lines books for information and rules in rifts.
The game while PF is a separate setting in rifts it does exist. IE their have stuff in rifts stated to come from PF. So the existence of PF is canon in Rifts. So rules that do not conflict with changes in rifts Exist.

Each PB game is a setting, while their are tweeks to each setting to make them work better almost all them exist in canon statements and NPCs in rifts. So they are part of the same game, just different settings. Like how Forgotten Relms, Dark Sun and Birthright where all settings in AD&D had specific tweeks to the settings but where the same game connected by planescape and spell jammer.

If I recall originally conversion book 1 even directed changing occs as an option to TWs.

They never tell us not to use the rules for other games in rifts and their have been times they direct us to rules. (If I recall correctly at one time a printed Faq in i think one of the rifters directed people to the rules in the cutting room floor for it.)

Exactly!

[guardiandashi]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class) and that there is clearly no way to change to or from that class, even though that's not explicitly stated anywhere. IMO he has long been trying to insist that his house rules and "canon" override any other interpretation because he knows the writers intent better than any of the rest of us.

personally I am giving Killer Cyborg a lot more credit, as he is doing a better job of defending his arguments than Drewkitty. for the foloowing reasons:
Killer has actual cites
Drew does not

Killer has an actual logical interpretation that makes sense in context
Drew again does not

[Mack]

Please do not get personal.

[Axelmania]

To quote the Rifts Conversion Book 1r page 7

"These other worlds are not an official part of the Rifts game setting and are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of RPG rules."

To paraphrase that: they are a part of the rifts game, they are all different games that use the same basic RPG system.

"setting" sounds like they're talking about the literal planets (NBearth/HUearth/SFearth etc)

To paraphrase what I've said before....
All the rules to a game are found in the gamebooks of that game. Needing no other gamebooks to have ALL The Rules.

This is the core idea of ALL games. Not just RPGs.

Except that to play Rifts Mercenaries you actually need Ninjas and Superspies.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class)

You are so freezing wrong. In that topic, I was not insisting that what I posted there as canon and I never insisted that anyone use it the way you are implying. And that topic only described what the traits of the classes commented on, based on the text in the class itself.

If anyone misunderstood what I was doing in that topic, is because they ether didn't READ the opening text or refused to understand the text of the OP because they had a knee Jerk reaction and never really read the text as a whole. Or they just used it as an excuse to be a troll.
------
As to the rest of it.

KC never did support his POV from any of the citations he presented before I said Fin. (As in I had left the conversation then because I realized even thou I was giving factual statements, they would not change KS's preconceptions that were the basis of his arguments. However, but I saw someone bad mouthing one of my posts like he never really understood what I was doing there or was just repeating someone else's negative opinion and spouting it as misinformation.)

Why didn't I cite anything....Because there is nothing to cite in the current canon to cite....at all. So there was nothing to cite. If you actually critically read what KS cited without any preconceptions coloring your understanding, ''''nothing'''' he cited was in the current canon that said to treat the different PB games as one game. If ''nothing'' in the current canon says to treat the the different pb games as one game, then they are different games. Even after I asked for citations for this KC never presented any from the current canon.
*shrugs* I try to treat every bode that they are smart and can think for themselves. But if you can't see that one Side of an discussion isn't saying anything to support their assertion, and starts attacking the other person because they swept the legs out from under their preconceptions which was the foundation of their arguments, then I feel disappointed because they didn't meet my assumptions.

To sum things up.....
--You were wrong in what you misremembered.

and
--There is nothing in the citations KC gave that supported his opinion, to treat all the PB games as one game.
--What I was saying is that there is nothing to cite about about treating the many PB GAMES and one game in the current canon.

EDIT: And that means that each individual game is that individual games.

PS

To quote the Rifts Conversion Book 1r page 7

"These other worlds are not an official part of the Rifts game setting and are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of RPG rules."

I highlighted the point of the quote.

EDIT: There is a 2nd quote to cite from the interview of KS in rifter 20, page 84...

Are you planing to publish a Megaversal Rulebook? If so, do you have a release detain mind?
No. I don't have any plan to od a "Megaversal Rulebook." I find every world setting has little nuances and considerations that makes it different from other games. True, all Palladium games use ONE Megaversal set of basic rules, but I think each game has its own flavor and little touches that require its own set of rules.

No, I am not conceding. I have left this pointless discussion because it has started to becoming a toxic argument .

[Axelmania]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class) and that there is clearly no way to change to or from that class, even though that's not explicitly stated anywhere.

whatever we think about changing, I'm sure I've seen the phrase "psychic RCC" at least once in print (not sure where) in which case while PRC/psychic racial class isn't an exact phrase it'd be an acceptable fan-shorthand to represent that concept.

The only thing uncelar would be what to call the rest of the RCCs...

Something like "non-psychic RCC" would feel weird for creatures like dragons who do start with natural psi, for example. Even though it soooorta means ~characterized by master psi abilities present on a species who doesn't all have them~ if I were to abridge my understanding of it.

Also: le Atlantean Mind Bleeders

[guardiandashi]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class) and that there is clearly no way to change to or from that class, even though that's not explicitly stated anywhere.

whatever we think about changing, I'm sure I've seen the phrase "psychic RCC" at least once in print (not sure where) in which case while PRC/psychic racial class isn't an exact phrase it'd be an acceptable fan-shorthand to represent that concept.

The only thing uncelar would be what to call the rest of the RCCs...

Something like "non-psychic RCC" would feel weird for creatures like dragons who do start with natural psi, for example. Even though it soooorta means ~characterized by master psi abilities present on a species who doesn't all have them~ if I were to abridge my understanding of it.

Also: le Atlantean Mind Bleeders

officially there are only
Rcc
and Occ

where Rcc is defined as a race that is so dominated by a certain set of training (and racial abilities) that it overshadows everything else.
OCC is where you get to pick a class template and if there are racial items linked to it, they are not the end all of the character.

with that said I wish there were more "race" templates for alternate races that can take more OCC's

what I mean by that is
for instance Dogboys start with 3D6 in all stats, and get x bonus to stats (all dogboys) and certain breeds get y bonus to stats and all dogboys get default psionic and racial abilities (the psionics and tracking and scent abilities) additionally if desired you can roll on the abnormality tables if desired. ( 1 table is specific to dogboys, the other is for all mutant animals and represents "hmm I wonder what would happen if we try to do ...." )

and then lists of the occs that are available , and or common to these races.

[Blue_Lion]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class) and that there is clearly no way to change to or from that class, even though that's not explicitly stated anywhere.

whatever we think about changing, I'm sure I've seen the phrase "psychic RCC" at least once in print (not sure where) in which case while PRC/psychic racial class isn't an exact phrase it'd be an acceptable fan-shorthand to represent that concept.

The only thing uncelar would be what to call the rest of the RCCs...

Something like "non-psychic RCC" would feel weird for creatures like dragons who do start with natural psi, for example. Even though it soooorta means ~characterized by master psi abilities present on a species who doesn't all have them~ if I were to abridge my understanding of it.

Also: le Atlantean Mind Bleeders

officially there are only
Rcc
and Occ

where Rcc is defined as a race that is so dominated by a certain set of training (and racial abilities) that it overshadows everything else.
OCC is where you get to pick a class template and if there are racial items linked to it, they are not the end all of the character.

with that said I wish there were more "race" templates for alternate races that can take more OCC's

what I mean by that is
for instance Dogboys start with 3D6 in all stats, and get x bonus to stats (all dogboys) and certain breeds get y bonus to stats and all dogboys get default psionic and racial abilities (the psionics and tracking and scent abilities) additionally if desired you can roll on the abnormality tables if desired. ( 1 table is specific to dogboys, the other is for all mutant animals and represents "hmm I wonder what would happen if we try to do ...." )

and then lists of the occs that are available , and or common to these races.

oOu missed P.C.C. while more common in other settings they did appear
in some rifts books and are also addressed on page 278 rue. They say rifts has them but to avoid confusion they refer to them ass OCC or RCC. So PCC do exist.

[Blue_Lion]

I may be misremembering, but Drewkitty, is also the person who has long insisted that PRC is a thing, (Psychic Racial Class) and that there is clearly no way to change to or from that class, even though that's not explicitly stated anywhere.

whatever we think about changing, I'm sure I've seen the phrase "psychic RCC" at least once in print (not sure where) in which case while PRC/psychic racial class isn't an exact phrase it'd be an acceptable fan-shorthand to represent that concept.

The only thing uncelar would be what to call the rest of the RCCs...

Something like "non-psychic RCC" would feel weird for creatures like dragons who do start with natural psi, for example. Even though it soooorta means ~characterized by master psi abilities present on a species who doesn't all have them~ if I were to abridge my understanding of it.

Also: le Atlantean Mind Bleeders

I never seen it, I have seen Psychic charter class or PCC.