What are the odds of rolling a cyber knight?

[Natasha]

Decided to attempt to make something useful/fun with the roll up a bazillion characters thing. You can go and Run http://plnkr.co/edit/HJUNgN30VC9BZnD1xvdb

You can select the character's attribute requirements you are interested in, then click Generate.
The odds will be calculated and 10000 trials will be run and the results displayed for comparison to the theory's prediction. Additionally, ten sample characters are rolled up and presented -- in this case, logic has been added to identify what specific kind of city rat the character could be.

If the exploding dice option is selected, you can get an attribute number as large as 30. Exploding dice are not used in the testing.

If you select the clear option, then 10 new characters are generated, else they are prepended to the existing list.

A cyber knight has requirements of M.E. at least 11 and P.E. at least 11. Theory predicts a 25% chance of rolling that up on straight 3D6 rolls. The result of the 10000 trials I just ran was 25%.

The app is editable by anybody if you're so inclined.

[Mack]

I did something similar a few years ago with Military Specialists.

Mil Specs need: IQ of 12, ME of 12, & PE of 10.

Short answer: only about 9% of the general population would meet the minimum thresholds.

[Natasha]

That's cool. I had the same results on Military Specialist; I'm going to say I didn't botch it.

[Killer Cyborg]

So it's more likely to be a cyberknight than a military specialist.

[glitterboy2098]

going by RUE, to meet or exceed the minimum requirement for a cyberknight (ME of 11) it's 50%
if you add the suggested IQ, PS, and PE scores of 10+, it comes out to 12.2%
(PE is actually mentioned twice.. once as a 11+ requirement, than as a 10+ "suggested". the 2nd overrides the first, so only the ME is the hard requirement)

which to be honest.. isn't actually that bad. certainly gives them a huge pool of potential recruits.

[Axelmania]

A cyber knight has requirements of M.E. at least 11 and P.E. at least 11

Oh geez, only just noticing they snuck that in, RUE p 66 mentions it but no PE requirement was present on RMB 63 (only the ME requirement) where it simply said:

High I.Q., M.A., P.S., and P.E. attributes (all 10 or higher) are suggested but not required

Sot4 pg 31 has the PE requirement so I guess that's when it got added. Is anyone aware of any RMB reprints which had it? Talk about shadow updates!

CK31/RUE66 actually phrase this rather hilariously:

Attribute Requirements: Minimum P.E. of 11, with an I.Q., P.S., and P.E. attributes of 10 or higher suggested, but not required.

Have any errata/reprints corrected this? They kept PE in the suggested/not required list despite clearly adding a higher req than the suggestion. It should only say IQ/PS suggestions.

Now I'm wondering if I can find some statted cyber-knight NPCs with low PE. Off-hand the only one I can remember is Tarn's friend (non-canon stats) in the Rifter because he was blood-drained a bunch by Mexican vampires.

[glitterboy2098]

the way the rules work, later mentions override earlier ones, when they differ. so the PE 11 requirement is erased by the "PE 10 is suggested" bit.

so the minimum requirement is the ME of 11+.

i suspect there was a misprint and they meant ME 11+ in the first line.. the 2nd paragraph that mentioned the ME requirement comes across as an elaboration on what the requirements mean in terms of roleplay (as seen in other OCC's).

[Natasha]

lol, I just skimmed to get numbers to use in the post's text. I completely overlooked the details. I would have chosen a different class if I had seen that jumble.

[Axelmania]

the way the rules work, later mentions override earlier ones, when they differ.
so the PE 11 requirement is erased by the "PE 10 is suggested" bit.

Source? I would figure new added requirements would override accidentally-left-in parts.

[Mack]

going by RUE, to meet or exceed the minimum requirement for a cyberknight (ME of 11) it's 50%
if you add the suggested IQ, PS, and PE scores of 10+, it comes out to 12.2%
(PE is actually mentioned twice.. once as a 11+ requirement, than as a 10+ "suggested". the 2nd overrides the first, so only the ME is the hard requirement)

which to be honest.. isn't actually that bad. certainly gives them a huge pool of potential recruits.

I believe you missed something in the underlined portion. For a IQ of 10+, ME of 11+, PS of 10+, and PE of 11+, the odds are 9.77%.

Another tough class is the Lord Magus (FoM, p78).
The minimum (IQ 12, ME 13, PE 13, PP 13) yields 0.65%... but if you add the 'recommended' high MA it drops to 0.25%.

[glitterboy2098]

no.. as i pointed out, the PE score is "10+ suggested", because when there is a conflicting entry, the newer/later entry takes precedent. so the PE 11 requirement is overridden. the ME score is the only hard requirement.

[Axelmania]

no.. as i pointed out, the PE score is "10+ suggested", because when there is a conflicting entry, the newer/later entry takes precedent. so the PE 11 requirement is overridden. the ME score is the only hard requirement.

That sounds like a house rule bro. You're extrapolating form policies people take about chronological "published a month after" laters, not "the next sentence" laters.

[glitterboy2098]

Axel, this is literally PB's own policy regarding such things. as has been pointed out to you a dozen times before in other threads.

[Mack]

no.. as i pointed out, the PE score is "10+ suggested", because when there is a conflicting entry, the newer/later entry takes precedent. so the PE 11 requirement is overridden. the ME score is the only hard requirement.

We’ll agree to disagree on that.

[eliakon]

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.

[lather]

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.

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.

[eliakon]

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.

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.

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.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

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.

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.

That's probably Rule 0.01

[lather]

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.

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.

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.

Great. Since that wasn't my premise, I'm going to assume you didn't intend to reply to me. Obviously you wouldn't be burning down straw men.

[eliakon]

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.

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.

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.

Great. Since that wasn't my premise, I'm going to assume you didn't intend to reply to me. Obviously you wouldn't be burning down straw men.

Its the best premise I can surmise from responding to a question for a canon answer on a question with Rule 0
Either that or you were trolling/flamebaiting.
Or I guess you can explain how your answer was relevant to the question in any way/shape/form and answered it.

[lather]

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.

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.

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.

Great. Since that wasn't my premise, I'm going to assume you didn't intend to reply to me. Obviously you wouldn't be burning down straw men.

Its the best premise I can surmise from responding to a question for a canon answer on a question with Rule 0
Either that or you were trolling/flamebaiting.
Or I guess you can explain how your answer was relevant to the question in any way/shape/form and answered it.

I get it. You don't like the answer. So it must be garbage. The onus is actually on you to establish that since it's your claim. But, hey, things don't work like they normally do among adults around here.

RUE, page 277: the Game Master "serves as the general referee and rules interpreter" and conflict implies a resolution is required. You could go eat some cake instead or you could interpret the rules. Kevin suggests that if you're not going to go eat some cake that you interpret the rules according to your imagination.

If you think that "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" is exactly the same thing as "nothing matters, there are no rules" then we can take a look at the particulars and maybe get you back to some common ground or even anything resembling reality. Maybe.

[dreicunan]

I get it. You don't like the answer. So it must be garbage. The onus is actually on you to establish that since it's your claim. But, hey, things don't work like they normally do among adults around here.

RUE, page 277: the Game Master "serves as the general referee and rules interpreter" and conflict implies a resolution is required. You could go eat some cake instead or you could interpret the rules. Kevin suggests that if you're not going to go eat some cake that you interpret the rules according to your imagination.

If you think that "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" is exactly the same thing as "nothing matters, there are no rules" then we can take a look at the particulars and maybe get you back to some common ground or even anything resembling reality. Maybe.

"nothing matters, there are no rules" is merely the logical extreme of "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" in the context of which Eliakon is speaking, that of rules conflicts within the same book. I concur with both Eliakon and Killer Cyborg that while it is great for moving things along at a tabletop, it is indeed quite unhelpful for discussing what the rules actually are.

To go a step further, I've come to see it as an abdication of responsibility for his own gaming system by Kevin S. It seems to me that he has no desire (and hasn't for a long time) to get involved in the difficult work of actual game design. If he had, RUE would have been a more detailed revision of the system instead of one in which it is literally impossible to even roll up a character if you try to follow the steps as written. Instead over the years we have regularly found out that he doesn't even run his own system as written.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I often find myself feeling like the whole idea of a palladium system is just a shared delusion that we all have. But absent that shared delusion there would be nothing to talk about, and so I buy back into it!

[lather]

I get it. You don't like the answer. So it must be garbage. The onus is actually on you to establish that since it's your claim. But, hey, things don't work like they normally do among adults around here.

RUE, page 277: the Game Master "serves as the general referee and rules interpreter" and conflict implies a resolution is required. You could go eat some cake instead or you could interpret the rules. Kevin suggests that if you're not going to go eat some cake that you interpret the rules according to your imagination.

If you think that "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" is exactly the same thing as "nothing matters, there are no rules" then we can take a look at the particulars and maybe get you back to some common ground or even anything resembling reality. Maybe.

"nothing matters, there are no rules" is merely the logical extreme of "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" in the context of which Eliakon is speaking, that of rules conflicts within the same book. I concur with both Eliakon and Killer Cyborg that while it is great for moving things along at a tabletop, it is indeed quite unhelpful for discussing what the rules actually are.

To go a step further, I've come to see it as an abdication of responsibility for his own gaming system by Kevin S. It seems to me that he has no desire (and hasn't for a long time) to get involved in the difficult work of actual game design. If he had, RUE would have been a more detailed revision of the system instead of one in which it is literally impossible to even roll up a character if you try to follow the steps as written. Instead over the years we have regularly found out that he doesn't even run his own system as written.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I often find myself feeling like the whole idea of a palladium system is just a shared delusion that we all have. But absent that shared delusion there would be nothing to talk about, and so I buy back into it!

Suppose for the sake of argument that I agree it's the logical extreme. Is there any reason to project the extreme on what I said? Is there any reason to believe projecting the extreme on what I said is the "best [one] can surmise"? Of course not.

Regardless if what I said is extreme or not, what I said is correct and it meets the requirements of the question. Nobody has to agree with it, but that is solely their problem. What I said is the correct answer.

Rules being in conflict presupposes that it's not knowable what "the rules actually are." Suppose that the conflict is not black and white and it's debatable. Fine. Discuss and debate it.

The narrow view that there's nothing else to discuss or "worth looking at" stiffles creativity and idea sharing with each other. I presume that "Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®" means all things, not just what Killer Cyborg thinks is worthy. You buy into it and I'm being genuine when I say good for you. But I don't. Nor do I have to in order to have a meaningful or helpful conversation with a community of people with a shared hobby.

I share my ideas. You share yours. They share theirs. We all read them. We select one or none from them that we like. We all make House Rules because we need them or prefer them over the official rules. What's the precise argument against sharing ideas with each other?

The real problem isn't that some of us want to widen the conversation. It's the apparent inability of people to embrace diversity of thought, particularly when it diverges from their own.

It's worth bearing in mind that the game was created to give our imaginations an avenue for expression. The game does not exist to narrow the discussion to the point in which we all have to think the same way. Now clearly I don't believe "nothing matters." Conflict resolution matters. Game Masters are necessary. Clearly I believe there are rules by necessary extension of acknowledging rules matter.

So, yea, the accusation leveled against me is bogus and the only appropriate action is for it to be withdrawn.

[dreicunan]

I get it. You don't like the answer. So it must be garbage. The onus is actually on you to establish that since it's your claim. But, hey, things don't work like they normally do among adults around here.

RUE, page 277: the Game Master "serves as the general referee and rules interpreter" and conflict implies a resolution is required. You could go eat some cake instead or you could interpret the rules. Kevin suggests that if you're not going to go eat some cake that you interpret the rules according to your imagination.

If you think that "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" is exactly the same thing as "nothing matters, there are no rules" then we can take a look at the particulars and maybe get you back to some common ground or even anything resembling reality. Maybe.

"nothing matters, there are no rules" is merely the logical extreme of "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" in the context of which Eliakon is speaking, that of rules conflicts within the same book. I concur with both Eliakon and Killer Cyborg that while it is great for moving things along at a tabletop, it is indeed quite unhelpful for discussing what the rules actually are.

To go a step further, I've come to see it as an abdication of responsibility for his own gaming system by Kevin S. It seems to me that he has no desire (and hasn't for a long time) to get involved in the difficult work of actual game design. If he had, RUE would have been a more detailed revision of the system instead of one in which it is literally impossible to even roll up a character if you try to follow the steps as written. Instead over the years we have regularly found out that he doesn't even run his own system as written.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I often find myself feeling like the whole idea of a palladium system is just a shared delusion that we all have. But absent that shared delusion there would be nothing to talk about, and so I buy back into it!

Suppose for the sake of argument that I agree it's the logical extreme. Is there any reason to project the extreme on what I said? Is there any reason to believe projecting the extreme on what I said is the "best [one] can surmise"? Of course not.

Regardless if what I said is extreme or not, what I said is correct and it meets the requirements of the question. Nobody has to agree with it, but that is solely their problem. What I said is the correct answer.

Rules being in conflict presupposes that it's not knowable what "the rules actually are." Suppose that the conflict is not black and white and it's debatable. Fine. Discuss and debate it.

The narrow view that there's nothing else to discuss or "worth looking at" stiffles creativity and idea sharing with each other. I presume that "Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®" means all things, not just what Killer Cyborg thinks is worthy. You buy into it and I'm being genuine when I say good for you. But I don't. Nor do I have to in order to have a meaningful or helpful conversation with a community of people with a shared hobby.

I share my ideas. You share yours. They share theirs. We all read them. We select one or none from them that we like. We all make House Rules because we need them or prefer them over the official rules. What's the precise argument against sharing ideas with each other?

The real problem isn't that some of us want to widen the conversation. It's the apparent inability of people to embrace diversity of thought, particularly when it diverges from their own.

It's worth bearing in mind that the game was created to give our imaginations an avenue for expression. The game does not exist to narrow the discussion to the point in which we all have to think the same way. Now clearly I don't believe "nothing matters." Conflict resolution matters. Game Masters are necessary. Clearly I believe there are rules by necessary extension of acknowledging rules matter.

So, yea, the accusation leveled against me is bogus and the only appropriate action is for it to be withdrawn.

I suppose that I shouldn't have assumed that you read the statement in context, so let me make it explicit. I was talking about discussing the system, as were Eliakon and Killer Cyborg. If there ultimately is no system with any set rules, then there is no discussion to be had about the system. Are you going to address that issue, or just keep throwing out soaring red herrings about imagination and pretending that those of us who do talk about the rules are narrow-minded?

[lather]

I get it. You don't like the answer. So it must be garbage. The onus is actually on you to establish that since it's your claim. But, hey, things don't work like they normally do among adults around here.

RUE, page 277: the Game Master "serves as the general referee and rules interpreter" and conflict implies a resolution is required. You could go eat some cake instead or you could interpret the rules. Kevin suggests that if you're not going to go eat some cake that you interpret the rules according to your imagination.

If you think that "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" is exactly the same thing as "nothing matters, there are no rules" then we can take a look at the particulars and maybe get you back to some common ground or even anything resembling reality. Maybe.

"nothing matters, there are no rules" is merely the logical extreme of "resolve conflicts according to your imagination" in the context of which Eliakon is speaking, that of rules conflicts within the same book. I concur with both Eliakon and Killer Cyborg that while it is great for moving things along at a tabletop, it is indeed quite unhelpful for discussing what the rules actually are.

To go a step further, I've come to see it as an abdication of responsibility for his own gaming system by Kevin S. It seems to me that he has no desire (and hasn't for a long time) to get involved in the difficult work of actual game design. If he had, RUE would have been a more detailed revision of the system instead of one in which it is literally impossible to even roll up a character if you try to follow the steps as written. Instead over the years we have regularly found out that he doesn't even run his own system as written.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I often find myself feeling like the whole idea of a palladium system is just a shared delusion that we all have. But absent that shared delusion there would be nothing to talk about, and so I buy back into it!

Suppose for the sake of argument that I agree it's the logical extreme. Is there any reason to project the extreme on what I said? Is there any reason to believe projecting the extreme on what I said is the "best [one] can surmise"? Of course not.

Regardless if what I said is extreme or not, what I said is correct and it meets the requirements of the question. Nobody has to agree with it, but that is solely their problem. What I said is the correct answer.

Rules being in conflict presupposes that it's not knowable what "the rules actually are." Suppose that the conflict is not black and white and it's debatable. Fine. Discuss and debate it.

The narrow view that there's nothing else to discuss or "worth looking at" stiffles creativity and idea sharing with each other. I presume that "Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®" means all things, not just what Killer Cyborg thinks is worthy. You buy into it and I'm being genuine when I say good for you. But I don't. Nor do I have to in order to have a meaningful or helpful conversation with a community of people with a shared hobby.

I share my ideas. You share yours. They share theirs. We all read them. We select one or none from them that we like. We all make House Rules because we need them or prefer them over the official rules. What's the precise argument against sharing ideas with each other?

The real problem isn't that some of us want to widen the conversation. It's the apparent inability of people to embrace diversity of thought, particularly when it diverges from their own.

It's worth bearing in mind that the game was created to give our imaginations an avenue for expression. The game does not exist to narrow the discussion to the point in which we all have to think the same way. Now clearly I don't believe "nothing matters." Conflict resolution matters. Game Masters are necessary. Clearly I believe there are rules by necessary extension of acknowledging rules matter.

So, yea, the accusation leveled against me is bogus and the only appropriate action is for it to be withdrawn.

I suppose that I shouldn't have assumed that you read the statement in context, so let me make it explicit. I was talking about discussing the system, as were Eliakon and Killer Cyborg. If there ultimately is no system with any set rules, then there is no discussion to be had about the system. Are you going to address that issue, or just keep throwing out soaring red herrings about imagination and pretending that those of us who do talk about the rules are narrow-minded?

I read it in context, and I was talking about discussing the system. The great asset of rules being important is that the answer I gave is the correct answer. I didn't pull out of my ass. I pulled it out of the god damn book. And nowhere did I say there is no system. You're just repeating a bogus accusation. Not really sure why, but, like I said, things work different around here. I never said people who talk about the rules are narrow minded. I said people who dog pile and shout down others for talking about their own interpretations of the rules are narrow minded. There no red herring there -- I am not trying to deceive anybody. If you're going to accuse me of it, feel free to support your assertions or just back them out.

[Natasha]

Straw men, misrepresentation, and mischaracterisation have become the norm. You may as well try to kick a whale along the beach.

[lather]

Me: There's a system, and we can discuss it.
Them: y u no want to discuss the system?

[Natasha]

Suppose for the sake of argument that I agree it's the logical extreme. Is there any reason to project the extreme on what I said? Is there any reason to believe projecting the extreme on what I said is the "best [one] can surmise"? Of course not.

Of course not. But we're going to anyway.

Regardless if what I said is extreme or not, what I said is correct and it meets the requirements of the question. Nobody has to agree with it, but that is solely their problem. What I said is the correct answer.

Game Masters do not resolve rules conflicts. Even if it's said they do in the definition of "Game Master".

Rules being in conflict presupposes that it's not knowable what "the rules actually are." Suppose that the conflict is not black and white and it's debatable. Fine. Discuss and debate it.

If you're not going to discuss the system, there's nothing to discuss.

The narrow view that there's nothing else to discuss or "worth looking at" stiffles creativity and idea sharing with each other. I presume that "Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®" means all things, not just what Killer Cyborg thinks is worthy. You buy into it and I'm being genuine when I say good for you. But I don't. Nor do I have to in order to have a meaningful or helpful conversation with a community of people with a shared hobby.

The only helpful conversation is the one I want to have. I cannot imagine it any other way than my own.

I share my ideas. You share yours. They share theirs. We all read them. We select one or none from them that we like. We all make House Rules because we need them or prefer them over the official rules. What's the precise argument against sharing ideas with each other?

Don't have one. I like my eggs how I like my eggs. And so should everybody else.

The real problem isn't that some of us want to widen the conversation. It's the apparent inability of people to embrace diversity of thought, particularly when it diverges from their own.

Allow me to provide a direct example of the problem you're speaking of by making the baseless claim that "resolve conflict in accordance with your imagination" might mean something completely different from what you mean. So I'm going to attribute it to what you mean even though you didn't.

It's worth bearing in mind that the game was created to give our imaginations an avenue for expression. The game does not exist to narrow the discussion to the point in which we all have to think the same way. Now clearly I don't believe "nothing matters." Conflict resolution matters. Game Masters are necessary. Clearly I believe there are rules by necessary extension of acknowledging rules matter.

Irrelevant. I've already made up my mind. You meant something you didn't and I insist on it.

So, yea, the accusation leveled against me is bogus and the only appropriate action is for it to be withdrawn.

That's not how it works Sparky.

[eliakon]

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.

So trying again

Is there anything that anyone knows that can be pointed to in published material that establishes the canon policy of Palladium Games for how conflicts in books are handled?
Is the policy latest material trumps aka the highest page number wins?
Is the policy first thing put up was the intent and everything else is an error?
Is there no policy and you just have to figure it out yourself?

I have heard basically every variation of theme presented as "the one true way" and I am curious if there is textual or official support for any of them being the actual Official Policy instead of What That One Guy Thinks It Should Be Because Its Obviously The Best Way To Do It Guys.

I am not asking how you would house rule it.
I am not asking what support you have for making those house rules
I am not asking what precedents exist for making house rules
I am asking, a two part question and just want that no meandering onto unrelated pet projects.
1) is there an official answer Yes or No
2) if yes what is the policy and where is it found.

[lather]

I hope you get your question answered. I'm jazzed to find out if my house rule "the Game Master does that" that's been printed in the rules unchanged for decades in just about every game published is incorrect.

[Natasha]

Sure is super helpful to assert that something that can be pointed to in published material that establishes the canon policy of resolving rules conflict in books is handled doesn't actually exist. It's not like anybody will spend days arguing against doing just that.

[dreicunan]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 294of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

[Killer Cyborg]

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

Interesting.

[lather]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

That quote you say that is on 297 sounds familiar to me, but I don't see it on that page (all I see are optional rules for rounding out one's character), and I haven't found it by skimming. I have third printing 2008 and recycled my older copy because of the massive editing mistake.

[Natasha]

Rules lawyers need to grow up?

Well, that's terrifying.

It is also spectacularly and singularly unhelpful in a discussion about the rules as printed.

Surely you jest, Mr Siembeida. Your request has been denied.

[dreicunan]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

That quote you say that is on 297 sounds familiar to me, but I don't see it on that page (all I see are optional rules for rounding out one's character), and I haven't found it by skimming. I have third printing 2008 and recycled my older copy because of the massive editing mistake.

Late night typing mistake. Page 294.

[Killer Cyborg]

Also on RUE 294
Ultimately, it comes down to what you and your fellow gamers enjoy and want out of a game. Me, I want role-playing, memorable characters, adventure, and epic stories, so that's how I designed the Palladium rules. It doesn't mean you cant take and tweak or modify the rules to satisfy your tastes.

It's official; you can modify the rules to taste, but if you do, it means that you don't want role-playing, memorable characters, adventure, or epic stories.

[lather]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

That quote you say that is on 297 sounds familiar to me, but I don't see it on that page (all I see are optional rules for rounding out one's character), and I haven't found it by skimming. I have third printing 2008 and recycled my older copy because of the massive editing mistake.

Late night typing mistake. Page 294.

Or the paragraph is an overall operational directive for being an effective Game Master: don't be a ******* in your rules interpretations and for the players' part don't be jackasses in response to those rules interpretations. In other words, I think it's not a contradiction of the definition of Game Master at all. A difference of ideas can exist, and that's not even a problem. I wouldn't even try to convince you to change your mind even though I would be happy to discuss the difference with you just to understand your point of view. It's a relatively minor thing for me at this point in time, however.

What I am interested in persuading people about is to stop the rules lawyering on the forums. The long and short of it is that it's as disruptive, counter-productive, and stifling in the forums as it is at our tables. Most of us have learned there's only one cure for rules lawyering: don't invite people to the table because you can't reason with unreasonable people. I disagree that rules lawyering is helpful. I am not convinced that the only conversation worth having is that about the rules as they are. I reject rules lawyering at my table. And I would like for us to reject it on the forums. The aforementioned does not mean in any way, shape, or form that "nothing matters, there are no rules." It doesn't even say that we can't discuss the rules as they are. It means we don't adopt the narrow view of the rules that rules lawyers do.

[Killer Cyborg]

What I am interested in persuading people about is to stop the rules lawyering on the forums.

This is not simply a good idea, but a downright hilarious idea!
It should be pretty simple to accomplish, because rules lawyers tend to follow rules.
So from now on, all you have to do is to create threads with an "No Rules Lawyering" clause in the title, such as
Glitter Boy vs. Juicer: Who Would Win? (No Rules Lawyering!)
or
Tolkeen Should Have Won The War!! (No Rules Lawyering)
and so forth.

Rules lawyers will tend to avoid those threads. If they happen to go in, and to start rules lawyering, ask them to leave. If they don't, then contact the moderators and they will likely assist you, since it's YOUR thread and people are clearly violating your intent.

Then, once everybody sees how fun conversations can be without any rules lawyering, things will take off, everybody will follow your very successful conversation model, and pretty soon the rules lawyers will be confined to a small minority of conversations.

I eagerly look forward to your success, and the many entertaining conversations that will doubtlessly ensue!

[dreicunan]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

That quote you say that is on 297 sounds familiar to me, but I don't see it on that page (all I see are optional rules for rounding out one's character), and I haven't found it by skimming. I have third printing 2008 and recycled my older copy because of the massive editing mistake.

Late night typing mistake. Page 294.

Or the paragraph is an overall operational directive for being an effective Game Master: don't be a ******* in your rules interpretations and for the players' part don't be jackasses in response to those rules interpretations. In other words, I think it's not a contradiction of the definition of Game Master at all. A difference of ideas can exist, and that's not even a problem. I wouldn't even try to convince you to change your mind even though I would be happy to discuss the difference with you just to understand your point of view. It's a relatively minor thing for me at this point in time, however.

What I am interested in persuading people about is to stop the rules lawyering on the forums. The long and short of it is that it's as disruptive, counter-productive, and stifling in the forums as it is at our tables. Most of us have learned there's only one cure for rules lawyering: don't invite people to the table because you can't reason with unreasonable people. I disagree that rules lawyering is helpful. I am not convinced that the only conversation worth having is that about the rules as they are. I reject rules lawyering at my table. And I would like for us to reject it on the forums. The aforementioned does not mean in any way, shape, or form that "nothing matters, there are no rules." It doesn't even say that we can't discuss the rules as they are. It means we don't adopt the narrow view of the rules that rules lawyers do.

If it were merely an operational directive of the nature that you state, why include the statement about it being acceptable to a majority of players? Indeed, why place it in a paragraph that is specifically dealing with tweaking the game rules? To read it the way that you suggest is to divorce it from the context in which the statement was made. It is making the authority of the rules interpreter subject to the will of the majority of the players, and thus it is ultimately the players who are the rules interpreters. That would certainly appear to contradict the GM as rules interpreter role put forth elsewhere!

Don't worry, your point of view is a relatively minor thing for me at this point in time, too.

Also, who has engaged in rules lawyering in this thread? Trying to determine if there is an official rule to follow does not equal rules lawyering, after all. No one here has made the claim that is nothing to talk about but the rules, merely that if we are going to try and talk about official rules it is necessary that there be such a thing!

[lather]

@Eliakon: near as I can tell, there is no policy beyond figure it out, thus making any such resolution a house rule. However, I did stumble across one caveat for that process:

Per page 297 of RUE, "These changes and tweaks are called 'house rules' and as long as the majority of the players agree with and accept the changes, and the game is fun, then there's nothing wrong with it. Rules lawyers need to grow up." (emphasis added)

That is significant because it contradicts the idea of the GM being the "rules interpreter" that has been put forth, essentially making the gm a sort of executive officer whose decisions have to be ratified by a simple majority. So long as the game is fun...I suppose that a simple majority makes that determination as well.

In other words, Rifts apparently manages to contradict itself in the same book about the process for handling contradictions within the same book. Is there anything more Palladium than that?

That quote you say that is on 297 sounds familiar to me, but I don't see it on that page (all I see are optional rules for rounding out one's character), and I haven't found it by skimming. I have third printing 2008 and recycled my older copy because of the massive editing mistake.

Late night typing mistake. Page 294.

Or the paragraph is an overall operational directive for being an effective Game Master: don't be a ******* in your rules interpretations and for the players' part don't be jackasses in response to those rules interpretations. In other words, I think it's not a contradiction of the definition of Game Master at all. A difference of ideas can exist, and that's not even a problem. I wouldn't even try to convince you to change your mind even though I would be happy to discuss the difference with you just to understand your point of view. It's a relatively minor thing for me at this point in time, however.

What I am interested in persuading people about is to stop the rules lawyering on the forums. The long and short of it is that it's as disruptive, counter-productive, and stifling in the forums as it is at our tables. Most of us have learned there's only one cure for rules lawyering: don't invite people to the table because you can't reason with unreasonable people. I disagree that rules lawyering is helpful. I am not convinced that the only conversation worth having is that about the rules as they are. I reject rules lawyering at my table. And I would like for us to reject it on the forums. The aforementioned does not mean in any way, shape, or form that "nothing matters, there are no rules." It doesn't even say that we can't discuss the rules as they are. It means we don't adopt the narrow view of the rules that rules lawyers do.

If it were merely an operational directive of the nature that you state, why include the statement about it being acceptable to a majority of players? Indeed, why place it in a paragraph that is specifically dealing with tweaking the game rules? To read it the way that you suggest is to divorce it from the context in which the statement was made. It is making the authority of the rules interpreter subject to the will of the majority of the players, and thus it is ultimately the players who are the rules interpreters. That would certainly appear to contradict the GM as rules interpreter role put forth elsewhere!

Because being acceptable to a majority of players is an operational directive. The context is the Game Master saving a bad game. And, good or bad, Kevin says at least 33% of Game Masters tweak the rules. The interpretation doesn't have to begin with the Game Master for the Game Master to operate in the role given to them. In such cases a player may ask for a rules interpretation and spin their hat around and bark in the referee's face their own interpretation, but that doesn't make the player the rules interpreter.

Don't worry, your point of view is a relatively minor thing for me at this point in time, too.

I apologize for being unclear. I do not minimalize your point of view. When I said it's a minor thing I wasn't clear about what "it" was. Please accept my apology and this clarification. Trying to persuade you to accept the definitions of "Game Master" and "Player" that are written in the book isn't important to me. I tried to separate persuasion from understanding why you don't accept the written definitions by saying it's a conversation that I gladly participate in. Understanding and explaining things doesn't require persuasion attempts of any kind if we agree to that before we attempt to understand and explain things. I didn't do well enough at it. So, again, I apologize and repeat that I am happy to have that discussion about the differences in understanding the prescribed roles as long as we aren't trying to persuade each other of anything.

Also, who has engaged in rules lawyering in this thread? Trying to determine if there is an official rule to follow does not equal rules lawyering, after all. No one here has made the claim that is nothing to talk about but the rules, merely that if we are going to try and talk about official rules it is necessary that there be such a thing!

Hm. I've agreed with these things, of course. I never said don't do. I did say to do it. I'm not sure what the problem is and I'm being completely honest.

As for rules lawyering that does on, I'd point that I'm speaking of the forums in general. I was explicit about it. But where it has occurred in this thread is the dismissal of my answer out of hand by misrepresenting it. And you not only agreed with but defended that behavior. Here it is the misrepresentation again for review.

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.

Are you no longer agreeing my answer precluded "any discussion at all"? If not, please explain how my answer precluded any discussion at all? Bearing in mind that I have been clear about there being official rules and they should be discussed.

We can focus on this thread. Fine. But rules lawyering is a larger problem "on the forums" that I'm talking about. I have said on a few occasions that discussing the official rules is something I agree should be done, but people keep telling me there's nothing wrong with discussing the official rules as if I have somehow disagreed. It's a perverse thing to come here, agree, and then have people become sour. What I am disagreeing with and amazed that anybody defends is the narrow view that the official rules is the only discussion worth having to the point of straight up misrepresenting what people say so as to be to dismiss them out of hand so as to not have the discussion. Or, in another thread, tell them that their ideas are not worthy of consideration let alone discussion so as to not have the discussion.

If you don't want to talk about it... don't talk about it. Seems simple. I'm not sure why anybody expects me to teach people to grow up. Particularly when it's written right there in the book for me. And things written in the book are, supposedly, pretty important to people. Except when it isn't, I suppose.

What's the precise justification for accepting that kind of behavior? Is misrepresenting somebody's idea so you can dismiss it out of hand REALLY trying to discuss the official rules?

[Natasha]

you can't reason with unreasonable people.

You're the one considered unreasonable.

Just give up. It's the only change you'll be able to actually make.

Since we can't kick them out, the forums are the place rules lawyers can self-actualise and take over.

[Killer Cyborg]

Since we can't kick them out, the forums are the place rules lawyers can self-actualise and take over.

OR you can try that thing I said earlier.

[lather]

Since we can't kick them out, the forums are the place rules lawyers can self-actualise and take over.

OR you can try that thing I said earlier.

I'd be all for it if it didn't mean accepting normal adult behavior as the exception to the rule. It puts added burden on the people doing what we should be doing all along. And I'll feel like that until the forum description doesn't say "all things" and the book doesn't say "rules lawyers should grow up." These things point to the forums were never intended to be the Romper Room they are. Rules lawyers won't grow up if they don't have to. So let them be the exception and have them tag their posts as the exception.

[Killer Cyborg]

Since we can't kick them out, the forums are the place rules lawyers can self-actualise and take over.

OR you can try that thing I said earlier.

I'd be all for it if it didn't mean accepting normal adult behavior as the exception to the rule.

Okay, then... don't implement a solution that would get you closer to what you want.
That'll show 'em!

It puts added burden on the people doing what we should be doing all along.

Except that YOU don't get to decide for everybody what we "should" be doing.

And I'll feel like that until the forum description doesn't say "all things"

People are free to discuss all things.
That, in fact, does seem to be your objection--that people are free to discuss things that you don't like, or in ways that you don't like.

These things point to the forums were never intended to be the Romper Room they are.

Source?

Rules lawyers won't grow up if they don't have to. So let them be the exception and have them tag their posts as the exception.

You really want to get into an argument about whether or not your personal view of what "rules lawyers" are are the exception or not?
If so, you might want to start by defining what your personal definition of the term is.
If not, then maybe compromise a bit [and let people know what kind of behavior you want when you start a topic.
To ME, that's the norm--defining parameters when one starts a conversation, and letting people know what kind of conversation you'd like to have if you're unwilling to accept all forms of discussion.
You're the one wishing to place a restriction; the burden is on you to describe what that restriction IS, and to let people know that you wish to impose it on your conversation.
The burden is not on other people to read your mind.

[Killer Cyborg]

lol, I just skimmed to get numbers to use in the post's text. I completely overlooked the details. I would have chosen a different class if I had seen that jumble.

Out of curiosity, which class would you have chosen?

[Natasha]

lol, I just skimmed to get numbers to use in the post's text. I completely overlooked the details. I would have chosen a different class if I had seen that jumble.

Out of curiosity, which class would you have chosen?

The next one I turned to that wasn't a jumbled mess.

[Killer Cyborg]

lol, I just skimmed to get numbers to use in the post's text. I completely overlooked the details. I would have chosen a different class if I had seen that jumble.

Out of curiosity, which class would you have chosen?

The next one I turned to that wasn't a jumbled mess.

Fair enough.
Let me know if you find one.

[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. If you really don't understand that the desired restriction is "don't misrepresent, don't rudely dismiss" then I am willing to try something else, but it'll require some work on your part. Highlight the things I've said that brought you to the conclusion that I want to restrict anything else and I'll do my best to correct to those things that I said such that the desired restriction is "don't misrepresent, don't rudely dismiss."

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.

[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.