What are the odds of rolling a cyber knight?

[kaid]

What I used to do in the past when I was GM'ing at least for the physical stats was if they did not get the initial rolls high enough try to make the character and pick the skills and if they could get enough physical training boost to put their stats over the thresholds necessary they could play it. We just assumed they were naturally not that great of a physical specimen but they took the time and put in the effort to train themselves to the best of their abilities.

Does not help to much with the more mental stats but made it a lot easier to get the base level PS and PP type stuff.

[eliakon]

What I used to do in the past when I was GM'ing at least for the physical stats was if they did not get the initial rolls high enough try to make the character and pick the skills and if they could get enough physical training boost to put their stats over the thresholds necessary they could play it. We just assumed they were naturally not that great of a physical specimen but they took the time and put in the effort to train themselves to the best of their abilities.

Does not help to much with the more mental stats but made it a lot easier to get the base level PS and PP type stuff.

to be honest in most cases when I GM I would allow a character who's rolls were bad enough that their best rolls couldn't be arranged to meet the minimums (we used the 'place stats where you wish' system not the 'roll them in order' system because hey... its what worked for us)...
...then I would simply raise their stats to the minimum needed. There were very few classes or times where this was ever even close to being an issue, everyone in the group thought it was a great system, and frankly if your stats are that bad then a couple extra stat points are not going to make that much difference. It did however save us the time of having to toss the character and roll up a new one when someone is presented with being told that they can't play the character that they want to play even though that character is a legal option in the game. To me that is just stupid, let the person play their character. Being forced to play a character you don't want is basically an open invitation to disruptive play and/or suicidal actions. Why do that just to maintain some arbitrary rule that you can simply Rule Zero away to make things more fun for all?

Just my two cents

[dreicunan]

Excellent summary by Killer Cyborg. I'd only add that Eliakon's statement about not allowing for discussion at all was in the context of discussing official rules; he wasn't claiming that it prevented all conversation about Rifts, period.

[lather]

You're the one wishing to place a restriction; the burden is on you to describe what that restriction IS

Since I feel like I have described the desired restriction as "don't misrepresent, don't rudely dismiss" several times already, then I don't feel like saying it again is going to help.

Maybe not...
But believe it or not, I had no idea until right now that you considered those things to be "rules lawyering," because they don't fit any definition of the term that I'm aware of.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post. I just want to focus on this because it's at the heart of the eliakon's disruption by way of highly inappropriate misrepresentation on Sunday and it is now Thursday. We can get to the other stuff after if you want.

Here's a recap from my view:
-Natasha posted her thing.
-People became aware of the differences in the rules regarding class requirements.
-As a tangent to an argument about which standards were most official, and whether new books always over-ride older books, Eliakon said:

Out of sheer curiosity...
...while I know that the shadow updates clearly establish that later publications over ride earlier ones by having the later edition of the same book be considered more authoritative than earlier ones.
This rule is also demonstrated by the fact that new rules and rule changes are often added in a book and then just proliferate via later books. Which makes a lot of sense as the company does very few version changes so there are not a lot of chances to release new core rule books that have all the latest changes, corrections and clarifications in them.
BUT
Is their anything demonstrably known one way or another about the policy of when there are conflicts in the same book?
I have heard yes and no in this same thread and now I'm curious.

He's asking a specific question, out of curiosity.
You responded with:

Kevin regularly admonishes us to follow our imaginations where they take us. That's demonstrably known; it's all over the introduction to the game... found at the end of the book.

Which doesn't really answer the question, because "follow where your imagination takes you" doesn't address the question of "is there an actual official policy of what to do when there are conflicts in the same book?"
Yes, I realized that you were trying to answer, and that you see "follow where your imagination takes you" AS the policy of how to decide which rules are more official... but do you understand why that seems like a useless non-answer to some of us?

Eliakon responded with:

Yes. That's often cited as Rule Zero.
It is also spectacularly and singularly unhelpful in a discussion about the rules as printed. Since that premise "Nothing matters, there are no rules just follow your imagination" doesn't allow for any discussion at all because there is no common ground at all.

What he's doing is NOT intentionally misrepresenting your response to him; he's paraphrasing it as he hears it.
He might be inadvertently tilting at a straw-man, but he's not just trying to be a **** to you as far as I can tell.

Eliakon was asking for something concrete.
You gave him something vague and insubstantial as a response, albeit something that Kevin does actually say periodically.
While you didn't say "nothing matters, there are no rules," that is--from the perspective of Eliakon and others--essentially the end result of "just follow your imagination" as an answer to any concrete rules question.
Because when somebody is asking IF there IS a concrete rule about something, being told to just follow their imagination is essentially telling them:
-that it doesn't matter whether or not there IS a concrete rule about this subject.
-that rather than ask what the rules are, people should just follow their imagination.

Does that make sense to you?

He was asking, "is an official stance to this technical question anywhere in the books?"
And was told "use your imagination," as an admonishment, as if he was in the wrong somehow for wondering if there even was an official rule that addressed his item of curiosity.
That comes off a lot like saying that he's in the wrong for asking about the rules, and to just make stuff up instead.

Of course it makes sense. That's why I re-stated the answer concretely. I didn't change the answer. I made it concrete. The initial answer was vague because it was given with some assumptions. The primary assumption was that the role prescribed to the Game Master is known and understood. That was my bad. I gave a vague answer. But I corrected it.

So I agree it's a good summary, to the extent it is a summary. The problem is that it's incomplete. It doesn't mention the majority of what I said. It doesn't mention that days were wasted dealing with a misrepresentation of the first thing I said. That's time that could been spent doing productive things, having grown up conversations.

The problem, then, is that despite the concrete answer given, the misrepresentation is clung to and even defended.

dreicunan did respond to the concrete answer I gave and I appreciate that since that's how I'd expect things to go.

I'll just take the first thing comes up in a google search for "rules lawyer" which is a wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer : "A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."
Certainly "misrepresents and dismisses" doesn't appear in the words of the definition. But those are among the tactics of rules lawyering. It's how rules lawyers attempt to gain the advantage.

In this topic, which isn't unique, the rules lawyer takes something somebody says and never lets go of it despite all corrections and clarifications provided. They use the letter of the statement without reference to whatever corrections and clarifications have been provided.

[Killer Cyborg]

You're the one wishing to place a restriction; the burden is on you to describe what that restriction IS

Since I feel like I have described the desired restriction as "don't misrepresent, don't rudely dismiss" several times already, then I don't feel like saying it again is going to help.

Maybe not...
But believe it or not, I had no idea until right now that you considered those things to be "rules lawyering," because they don't fit any definition of the term that I'm aware of.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post. I just want to focus on this because it's at the heart of the eliakon's disruption by way of highly inappropriate misrepresentation on Sunday and it is now Thursday. We can get to the other stuff after if you want.

Here's a recap from my view:
-Natasha posted her thing.
-People became aware of the differences in the rules regarding class requirements.
-As a tangent to an argument about which standards were most official, and whether new books always over-ride older books, Eliakon said:

Out of sheer curiosity...
...while I know that the shadow updates clearly establish that later publications over ride earlier ones by having the later edition of the same book be considered more authoritative than earlier ones.
This rule is also demonstrated by the fact that new rules and rule changes are often added in a book and then just proliferate via later books. Which makes a lot of sense as the company does very few version changes so there are not a lot of chances to release new core rule books that have all the latest changes, corrections and clarifications in them.
BUT
Is their anything demonstrably known one way or another about the policy of when there are conflicts in the same book?
I have heard yes and no in this same thread and now I'm curious.

He's asking a specific question, out of curiosity.
You responded with:

Kevin regularly admonishes us to follow our imaginations where they take us. That's demonstrably known; it's all over the introduction to the game... found at the end of the book.

Which doesn't really answer the question, because "follow where your imagination takes you" doesn't address the question of "is there an actual official policy of what to do when there are conflicts in the same book?"
Yes, I realized that you were trying to answer, and that you see "follow where your imagination takes you" AS the policy of how to decide which rules are more official... but do you understand why that seems like a useless non-answer to some of us?

Eliakon responded with:

Yes. That's often cited as Rule Zero.
It is also spectacularly and singularly unhelpful in a discussion about the rules as printed. Since that premise "Nothing matters, there are no rules just follow your imagination" doesn't allow for any discussion at all because there is no common ground at all.

What he's doing is NOT intentionally misrepresenting your response to him; he's paraphrasing it as he hears it.
He might be inadvertently tilting at a straw-man, but he's not just trying to be a **** to you as far as I can tell.

Eliakon was asking for something concrete.
You gave him something vague and insubstantial as a response, albeit something that Kevin does actually say periodically.
While you didn't say "nothing matters, there are no rules," that is--from the perspective of Eliakon and others--essentially the end result of "just follow your imagination" as an answer to any concrete rules question.
Because when somebody is asking IF there IS a concrete rule about something, being told to just follow their imagination is essentially telling them:
-that it doesn't matter whether or not there IS a concrete rule about this subject.
-that rather than ask what the rules are, people should just follow their imagination.

Does that make sense to you?

He was asking, "is an official stance to this technical question anywhere in the books?"
And was told "use your imagination," as an admonishment, as if he was in the wrong somehow for wondering if there even was an official rule that addressed his item of curiosity.
That comes off a lot like saying that he's in the wrong for asking about the rules, and to just make stuff up instead.

Of course it makes sense.

Okay, so were're agreed about all the above, then.

That's why I re-stated the answer concretely. I didn't change the answer. I made it concrete. The initial answer was vague because it was given with some assumptions. The primary assumption was that the role prescribed to the Game Master is known and understood. That was my bad. I gave a vague answer. But I corrected it.

When do you feel that you "made the answer concrete" or "corrected it?"
Did you at some point tell Eliakon either "yes, there is an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book" or "No, there is not an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book?"

It doesn't mention that days were wasted dealing with a misrepresentation of the first thing I said.

In what way do you believe that the first thing you said was represented?

I'll just take the first thing comes up in a google search for "rules lawyer" which is a wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer : "A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."
Certainly "misrepresents and dismisses" doesn't appear in the words of the definition. But those are among the tactics of rules lawyering. It's how rules lawyers attempt to gain the advantage.

Those are tactics that can be used by rules lawyers, but they can also be used by other people.
When you've been referring to "rules lawyering," I've been taking it to be referring to people attempting to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit,
or memorizing every obscure rule in the game, often using obscure rules to show up other gamers,
or memorizing the rulebook cover-to-cover, speaking out whenever anyone tries to bend or ignore one.

[lather]

When do you feel that you "made the answer concrete" or "corrected it?"
Did you at some point tell Eliakon either "yes, there is an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book" or "No, there is not an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book?"

Citing actual official policy should be sufficient such that adding "yes, there is an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book" would not be necessary. It would be absurd if I thought there wasn't an official policy on it and went on to cite the official policy on it.

In what way do you believe that the first thing you said was represented?

In the way I have already said a few times. What I said did not ever mean "nothing matters, there are no rules."

Those are tactics that can be used by rules lawyers, but they can also be used by other people.

Great. Now you know what rules lawyers I mean. If you have a better term, that's cool. But ******* gets censored.

[Killer Cyborg]

When do you feel that you "made the answer concrete" or "corrected it?"
Did you at some point tell Eliakon either "yes, there is an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book" or "No, there is not an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book?"

Citing actual official policy should be sufficient such that adding "yes, there is an official policy for rule conflicts within the same book" would not be necessary.

It sounds like you believe that the answer you provided was actually an answer on rules conflicts, but it was actually just a description of what a Game Master does, not anything addressing a policy on rules conflicts specifically.
This might be another part of the disconnect; you might feel misrepresented because you have a different view of the nature of the information that you provided than other people have.

From my perspective, you didn't tell anybody anything that they didn't already know, and you did not answer the question.
If, for example, somebody asked if the NFL had a policy for resolving rule conflicts, and you responded by pointing out that each game has referees, that wouldn't exactly resolve the question, nor even directly address it.
Nor would it tell anybody anything that they did not already know.

In this case, IF the text you had quoted stated "in the case of a rules conflict, the Game Master establishes canon policy for the company of Palladium," that would have addressed the question.
Although it would have raised some questions of its own.
Or if the text had stated, "in the case of a direct or indirect conflict of the official Palladium rules, each gaming group is left to resolve the conflict on their own, and the Game Master is the one who decides which rule to use," that would have answered the question.
But the actual text you cited does neither of those things; it just states that the GM's role is (among other things) to interpret the rules, which doesn't directly address what is supposed to happen in the case of a conflict in the rules.

Regardless, one strategy of clear communication is to directly state "yes" or "no" when addressing a yes/no question, whether or not you feel that the rest of your post implies one or the other of those responses.
It helps frame your answer, and avoid miscommunication.

It would be absurd if I thought there wasn't an official policy on it and went on to cite the official policy on it.

Yes, it would.
And if you thought that there wasn't an official policy, so you instead posted an indirect answer that didn't tell anybody anything new, that might seem useless and condescending.

In what way do you believe that the first thing you said was represented?

In the way I have already said a few times.

One strategy of clear communication is, when you feel like you are saying the same thing over and over and nobody understands you, to review what you have said, and to try to discover why people might not be understanding your intended message from your actual words.
Then strive to find a new way to express your thoughts from a different angle, one that has not been previously covered.

What I said did not ever mean "nothing matters, there are no rules."

I already explained how what you initially seemed to mean essentially that, and you agreed.
I'm curious at which point you feel that you clarified things?

Those are tactics that can be used by rules lawyers, but they can also be used by other people.

Great. Now you know what rules lawyers I mean. If you have a better term, that's cool. But ******* gets censored.

Maybe find something more precise, but less profane.
Otherwise you'll come off like that guy who thinks that because ninjas use swords, everybody with a sword is should be called a ninja.
It offends both ninjas and pirates alike, and it tends to confuse everybody else.

If you feel like people are deliberately misrepresenting your words in order to derail a conversation into pointless arguments, then the word "troll" would be much more appropriate.

If you feel like people are accidentally misrepresenting your words, and consequently derailing a conversation... well... maybe that's a "Don Quixote?"
I agree there's not a great term for that kind of person.
I usually work on improving my communication skills when trying to deal with such a person.

[lather]

This might be another part of the disconnect; you might feel misrepresented because you have a different view of the nature of the information that you provided than other people have.

I am misrepresented because of the false account of the information I provided. Others are free to have a different view, but proceeding as if their view is correct and my own is incorrect is what yields the misrepresentation.

But the actual text you cited does neither of those things; it just states that the GM's role is (among other things) to interpret the rules, which doesn't directly address what is supposed to happen in the case of a conflict in the rules.

Already gave my thoughts on this. Resolving a conflict in the rules requires interpreting the rules. The Game Master interprets the rules. So the Game Master resolves conflicts in the rules. Conflicts in the rules are a question of what the rules are. That's what Game Masters are for, among other things. I suppose somebody in the group could arbitrarily select a path forward, but that is an option that runs contrary to the defined roles in canon so I'd conclude it's not viable.

If I'm not telling anything new, then the question is pointless. If there is disagreement with my answer, then that disagreement ought to be explained. It's been a week and nothing of substance besides the brief discussion with dreicunan has done that.

I'm curious at which point you feel that you clarified things?

Where I cited actual canon. It was even responded to for the clarification that it was.

If you feel like people are deliberately misrepresenting your words in order to derail a conversation into pointless arguments, then the word "troll" would be much more appropriate.

Troll it is.

So if after all I've said it's still thought I meant "nothing matters, there are no rules" then it's time to support that claim. Otherwise, it's time to reject the misrepresentation. If there is disagreement that the Game Master resolves rules conflicts then it's time to support that claim. Barring these things this thread of discussion has run its course and I will no longer participate in it. I appreciate your input, but there isn't anything else to be said on an open topic. If you want to carry this particularly thread on, send me a direct message and I will consider continuing.

[Killer Cyborg]

This might be another part of the disconnect; you might feel misrepresented because you have a different view of the nature of the information that you provided than other people have.

I am misrepresented because of the false account of the information I provided.

In what way is (or ways are) the account false?

But the actual text you cited does neither of those things; it just states that the GM's role is (among other things) to interpret the rules, which doesn't directly address what is supposed to happen in the case of a conflict in the rules.

Already gave my thoughts on this. Resolving a conflict in the rules requires interpreting the rules.

Carpentry requires a hammer.
Carpentry is not a hammer.
A hammer is not carpentry.

The Game Master interprets the rules. So the Game Master resolves conflicts in the rules.

Not exactly.
A GM interprets the rules, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a resolution, not if there's a real conflict between the rules--only in cases where there is only an interpretational conflict.

Conflicts in the rules are a question of what the rules are. That's what Game Masters are for, among other things. I suppose somebody in the group could arbitrarily select a path forward, but that is an option that runs contrary to the defined roles in canon so I'd conclude it's not viable.

GMs only resolve things on a per-game or per-group level, and Eliakon was asking about a company-level resolution mechanism.

If I'm not telling anything new, then the question is pointless.

OR the information you present is not really an answer to the question asked.

I'm curious at which point you feel that you clarified things?

Where I cited actual canon. It was even responded to for the clarification that it was.

Do you mind linking to that post?
I don't know which part you're talking about, nor why you believe it clarifies anything, nor what exactly you believe it clarifies.

If you feel like people are deliberately misrepresenting your words in order to derail a conversation into pointless arguments, then the word "troll" would be much more appropriate.

Troll it is.

(but do be careful about targteting individuals specifically with the term, the mods sometimes consider specific accusations of trolling to be attempts to troll the person accused)

So if after all I've said it's still thought I meant "nothing matters, there are no rules" then it's time to support that claim.

I believe that I supported that claim in my earlier analysis.
You claim that you later clarified, that you meant something else... but also that you meant what you said?
I'm working on unraveling those parts.

As far as I can tell, Eliakon asked a concrete rules question, and you admonished him for asking, while providing a non-concrete answer using irrelevant canon as support.
Again, basically "just make something up" instead of actually giving him the rules answer he was looking for.
Yes, I get that you're saying that the GMs should just make something up, but it nets out the same: you're avoiding the question about whether Palladium has a specific policy as to what to do when rules conflict within a book, and instead derailing the discussion into the arena of GMs interpreting the rules, which isn't the same thing.

[Mack]

Topic locked for pedantic bickering.