What happens when a PC changes OCCs?

[Killer Cyborg]

KC never did support his POV from any of the citations he presented before I said Fin.

I have the strong impression that Drew's the only one who feels this way.
If I'm wrong, somebody let me know.

[Axelmania]

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.

Mind Melter and Burster clearly are not races/species like Dragon Hatchling.

RMB's definition of RCC was "skills and orientation based on racial characteristics and unusual powers rather than a typical human occupation"

I probably would've phrase that "OR unusual powers", except perhaps having unusual powers like psi results from a race capable of having psi...

Obviously all races with psi aren't forced to have an RCC unless it's master-level though, essentially because the "skills and orientation" are not based around merely having minor/major ones.

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.

PCC is a term introduced in BTS and reused in Nightbane and Mystic China.

RUE 278 does appear to say roughly "we have PCCs but we call them other stuff". Supposedly to "avoid confusion" even though clearly it INCREASS confusion, especially since they don't seem to be consistent about it (ie they'll call it an OCC or an RCC as need dictates).

That glossary almost seems recycled though because as of RUE they stopped using RCCs for the psychic classes anyway.

"basically an O.C.C. with psychic abilities" doesn't quite get us there either, because that could just as easily describe a Mystic/Technowizard/Cyberknight/Crazy/Operator as it could a Burster/Melter

It used to be basically "that category which got a pathetic 3D6 SDC they're even weaker than mages/scholars 4D6" but RUE 287 introduced this new 2D6+12 baseline which can be overrode by specific notes.

[drewkitty ~..~]

KC never did support his POV from any of the citations he presented before I said Fin.

I have the strong impression that Drew's the only one who feels this way.
If I'm wrong, somebody let me know.

I was stating an objective truth, instead of playing to 'feelings' about what I want to be true. You might want to find at least one citation in current canon for your stance. You'd be half-way to the two I cited.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC never did support his POV from any of the citations he presented before I said Fin.

I have the strong impression that Drew's the only one who feels this way.
If I'm wrong, somebody let me know.

I was stating an objective truth

WHEN...?

You stated your opinions as if they were fact.
I provided evidence and argument to the contrary.

You then "left*" the conversation, after repeating a circular logic loop a few times.

Sorry, man.
You didn't state objective truth. You stated your feelings.
I addressed your citations, and will again if you need to; I'm fine with going over things again and again until you grok what's happening.
You, on the other hand, didn't address any of mine, instead simply repeating your own premises.



*Edit: I added quotes because YOU'RE STILL HERE.

[Daeroos]

I went through reading these posts and was quite interested in how people seem to just like to argue. While normally I find myself on the opposite side as Drewkitty, in this instance I'm finding what he posted was most relevant to the conversation and am not sure why people are attacking him in this instance.

He specifically said where rules were located that could be used, but then also clarified that they are from PF and not Rifts (which could be important) as he also quoted directly from Conversion Book 1 revised the wording that says "...are NOT an official part of the Rifts game setting and ARE STAND-ALONE GAMES..." (caps to express the point) That seems to mostly end the debate of interconnectivity as intended by Palladium Books.

Yes, Palladium is built generally using the same system with some tweaks for setting, and rules can easily be taken from one to the other and KS and the others from Palladium seem to encourage that, but it isn't required and they directly say that no, what's in one isn't necessarily in all, but it can be very easily.

The game systems do have a lot of differing rules (personally I enjoy them so I kind of pull in, sometimes with modifications, rules from all the Palladium systems, but it's not required) and to just say carte blanche that yes they are all relevant in all games seems odd (especially when there's a direct quote from the game designers saying that isn't the case).

Curiosity has me wanting to ask the people who claim you must allow those things (despite quoted evidence to the contrary)... does that mean you'd allow actual multi-classing (multiple OCCs at the same time)? If yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (original Mechanoids Invasion trilogy). Can your rifts characters learn skills not on the OCC related/secondary skills list? Again, if yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (Heroes Unlimited) (and actually Rifts, via Phase World, started to introduce some things like this as well).

I guess my biggest curiosity is... why is it so hard to just admit that Rifts has specifically said "these other game systems are stand alone so their rules aren't cannon" but that as a gm you (and many others of us) decided to bring these rules in? I think it should always be specified if the rules are from the specific game system or not so that the person asking the question gets a full answer, because maybe the gm of the game they are in hasn't expanded to allow things from those other games?

I guess those are my big questions for now. Hope you are all staying safe and having a good day.

[drewkitty ~..~]

To refresh people's memory about my supporting citations....

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. And since the RCB1(older) was published after the RMB citations from it take precedence. Not that it really matters the same text is in both RCB1s.

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 do 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.

To refresh people's memory about what I've been saying..."All the PB games are individual games, not just settings of one big game.

Maybe KC should stop making retorical attacks and post a refresher his canon citations. That he claims support his claims. So the citations can be seen side by side.

EDIT: Note that "uses the same megaversal system' (which just means they use the basic game mechanics system) is not saying "the rules form the different games are so interchangable they are effectively one game."

If I am incorrect that KC's stance is the latter idea, I invited him to state his stance in plain English so it can be understood by even a non-gamer.

[Prysus]

I went through reading these posts and was quite interested in how people seem to just like to argue. While normally I find myself on the opposite side as Drewkitty, in this instance I'm finding what he posted was most relevant to the conversation and am not sure why people are attacking him in this instance.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, people often due like to argue. While some people seem to do it just to argue (and will almost always seem to take the stance which will take the most opposition), I think (for the most part) the arguments are a result of everyone believing that their correct. And most people don't consider that they can be wrong. As an example ...

Since it is obvious to me that there is an 'I can't be wrong' position on the other side of this

So this is an example of someone claiming the other side won't consider that they're wrong, while (from what I've seen) taking no consideration of the same (a pot, kettle type of thing). And this isn't targeting any particular poster on this, as most of us tend to be guilty of it. Honestly, I think it's difficult for most people. I, personally, do my best to go in with the mentality that I could be wrong, but I know I'm not perfect either.

There's also issues of carrying over grievances from other topics into this one. Many of us post so often, many of the threads blur together or a series of conflicts between two people over a series of threads will result in greater conflict that would otherwise be necessary. So, for example, if I bump into you in the hallway, okay, maybe it was an accident. But if I keep bumping into you in the hall repeatedly throughout the day, week, and/or month, it gets harder and harder to think of each incident in isolation, and someone else might find it odd that you're getting frustrated over an accidental bump in the hall. And again, this isn't trying to target any specifically, so much as address a topic you said you didn't understand.

Now, most of this doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand, so I'm probably not going to address it again (because it could derail the topic and really doesn't have anything to do with gaming directly).

He specifically said where rules were located that could be used, but then also clarified that they are from PF and not Rifts (which could be important) ...

I'll agree with this part. How everyone rules will vary, so it's a good thing to clarify where things are from, especially when it's a different setting. This lets people make informed decisions.

... as he also quoted directly from Conversion Book 1 revised the wording that says "...are NOT an official part of the Rifts game setting and ARE STAND-ALONE GAMES..." (caps to express the point) That seems to mostly end the debate of interconnectivity as intended by Palladium Books.

Well, you cut part of the quote off, and I part I'd consider important. I'll requote drewkitty ~..~ quoting the rest of it.

"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."

So this tells us two things.

1: The worlds are not an official part of the Rifts setting.
2: These are stand-alone games that all use the same basic set of rules.

So the Palladium World is not an official part of the Rifts setting. I can agree with that, as I understand this is licensing issue and the main reason for Palladium shifting away from the shared Megaverse. Motivations aside (and not sure this is addressed in any of the books as well), they tell us that the worlds are separate the games are stand alone.

The other part though tells us they use the same basic rules, and the question is not about a different setting's world, but the rules within that setting. So at this point, you have to decide if the changing class rules are part of the basic rules or some sort of advanced rules. Here's the thing with that though: Unless the book specifies if those rules are basic rules or advanced (or some other type) rules, then either way you decide could be argued to be a house rule. Since drewkitty ~..~'s stance (as near as I can tell) is that the rules must be explicitly written in order to not be a house rule: To support his stance he'd need to find a reference that states the changing class rules are NOT part of the basic rules, a statement that those specific rules cannot be used in Rifts without being a house rule, or acknowledge that his interpretation is equally a house rule (which has yet to happen, or be considered).

Yes, Palladium is built generally using the same system with some tweaks for setting, and rules can easily be taken from one to the other and KS and the others from Palladium seem to encourage that, but it isn't required and they directly say that no, what's in one isn't necessarily in all, but it can be very easily.

The game systems do have a lot of differing rules (personally I enjoy them so I kind of pull in, sometimes with modifications, rules from all the Palladium systems, but it's not required) and to just say carte blanche that yes they are all relevant in all games seems odd (especially when there's a direct quote from the game designers saying that isn't the case).

The quote, in full, tells us the worlds aren't shared, but the basic rules are. Where each individual draws the line after that is up to them.

Curiosity has me wanting to ask the people who claim you must allow those things (despite quoted evidence to the contrary)... does that mean you'd allow actual multi-classing (multiple OCCs at the same time)? If yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (original Mechanoids Invasion trilogy). Can your rifts characters learn skills not on the OCC related/secondary skills list? Again, if yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (Heroes Unlimited) (and actually Rifts, via Phase World, started to introduce some things like this as well).

Well, as an individual, I wouldn't argue that the changing class rules located in Adventures in the High Seas are official Rifts rules, but I'm not trying to make an empirical statement that my way is the only correct way and anyone who disagrees is making a house rule for having a different interpretation than mine.

However, I wouldn't allow rules for 1st Edition, but I would allow rules from any book that shares the 2nd Edition rules system (i.e., PPE and SDC).

And I do allow characters to learn skills not allowed in the Related and Secondary skill lists as long as they can find a teacher. I'm not sure my rules follow the ones you referenced or not though, as I can't recall seeing them in a book (but I've been playing a long time, and may have just forgotten).

I guess my biggest curiosity is... why is it so hard to just admit that Rifts has specifically said "these other game systems are stand alone so their rules aren't cannon" but that as a gm you (and many others of us) decided to bring these rules in? I think it should always be specified if the rules are from the specific game system or not so that the person asking the question gets a full answer, because maybe the gm of the game they are in hasn't expanded to allow things from those other games?

I guess those are my big questions for now. Hope you are all staying safe and having a good day.

Anytime someone takes the stance that their way is the only way while deriding others for not considering that their way is the only way, it'll almost always make things harder. That's just how people tend to react.

Also, every G.M. may draw the line in a different place. Some may allow rules from Phase World (which is still Rifts, of a sort) and others may not. Others may not allow rules even from a Rifts World Book for whatever reason. Yes, include references, please do. If the rule contradicts the official material or isn't addressed in any of the books at all, please identify it as a house rule. Let people make informed decisions. Arguing no one can use a rule from one of the books unless that rule from the book is first declared as a house rule per your personal requirements, not so good unless you're the G.M. and this is in relation to your personal games.

Hopefully that helps answer some of your questions. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Just for the record, while I wouldn't call the Adventures on the High Seas rule a Rifts rule, I would call it an imported rule. This is a rule taken from one source and moving it to another. I'd reserve the term House Rule for something that I've made up whole cloth or a rule I've altered for my personal games. This would keep the term House Rule for a rule I created for my house, while not using it for an official rule from the same company that I've opted to use when the setting in question doesn't address the topic one way or the other. In my opinion, using "house rule" for this type of situation dilutes the usage to the point of near meaningless. Take that opinion for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys.

[drewkitty ~..~]

House Rule....I include the 'Act of GM' to import a rule from a different PB games (or any other game) as a house rule. This is along with rules made up/developed by an individual GM for his or her game

[Killer Cyborg]

I went through reading these posts and was quite interested in how people seem to just like to argue. While normally I find myself on the opposite side as Drewkitty, in this instance I'm finding what he posted was most relevant to the conversation and am not sure why people are attacking him in this instance.

He specifically said where rules were located that could be used, but then also clarified that they are from PF and not Rifts (which could be important) as he also quoted directly from Conversion Book 1 revised the wording that says "...are NOT an official part of the Rifts game setting and ARE STAND-ALONE GAMES..." (caps to express the point) That seems to mostly end the debate of interconnectivity as intended by Palladium Books.

"Stand-alone" games means that you you don't need other books to play, nor other games.
It does NOT mean "all the rules for the megaversal system are included in this particular book/game."

You can play Rifts without using the Dual Classing rules from PFRPG, but that does NOT mean that Palladium intended the Dual Classing rules to be exclusive to PFRPG.
As has been noted, Rifts has any number of NPCs who are dual-classsed.
Logic states that they ended up that way somehow, and in a vacuum of any Rifts-specific rules for dual-classing, what we're left with is the PRFRPG rules.

The main question is whether the "megaversal system" was intended with strict walls between games except as and when specifically directed, essentially to be as many systems as PFRPG has games, albeit systems that are almost identical,
OR
whether the Megaversal System was intended to be a single system spread among a large number of games, with various rules for that system printed and spread among the various books and games.
The latter seems much, much more in Palladium's style, AND it better fits all the places where Palladium says stuff like:
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.
This means that all the "fundamental" or "basic" rules are the same.
We are never told that the rules for Dual Classing in PFRPG are NOT "fundamental" or "Basic." That's an assumption that Drew is making.
-If you learn one Palladium Role-Playing game, you can play ANY of them.
So if you learn PRFPG, you can play Rifts, according to canon. And there is nothing in Rifts telling anybody to discard the Dual Class rules they learned in PFRPG, nor any other rules, except when the Rifts rules are specifically different.
(Again, Rifts does not have different rules for Dual Classing; Rifts has a vacuum of rules addressing that aspect of the game, even though they DO have dual-classed NPCs.)

Both of these points--among others--point toward rules in the Megaversal System being sharable as a default, and point against the rules being isolated to whatever game they're listed in, unless players/GMs are specifically directed to.

Curiosity has me wanting to ask the people who claim you must allow those things (despite quoted evidence to the contrary)... does that mean you'd allow actual multi-classing (multiple OCCs at the same time)? If yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (original Mechanoids Invasion trilogy).

Maybe?
I'd have to read over the specific rules you're asking about, and check if they conflict with anything in Rifts.
If they don't, I don't see any reason not to use them.

Can your rifts characters learn skills not on the OCC related/secondary skills list? Again, if yes, cool. If not, why not? There's rules for it in a Palladium system (Heroes Unlimited) (and actually Rifts, via Phase World, started to introduce some things like this as well).

Yes, those HU rules work for people in Rifts learning other skills, unless there are Rifts-specific rules that contradict with them or replace them in the Rifts setting.

I guess my biggest curiosity is... why is it so hard to just admit that Rifts has specifically said "these other game systems are stand alone so their rules aren't cannon"

Palladium said that the games are "stand-alone."
That's not the same as "their rules are not canon for other games."
Again, it comes down to what exactly "The Megaversal System" IS, and we're never really informed on the specifics. We just have to guess from what Palladium says, and what they say indicates compatibility as a default, not incompatibility.
"If you learn one Palladium Role-Playing game, you can play ANY of them" doesn't seem to mean "If you learn one Palladium Role-Playing Game, you can play ANY of them as soon as you learn the rules of that game, because all the games in the Megaversal System are different systems with different rules that just happen to have a lot of overlap."

We all know that the Megaveral System shares "Basic" or "Fundamental" rules.
Palladium never specifies which rules are or are not "Basic" or "Fundamental."
So we're left to figure out things for ourselves.
Technically, at this point, it wouldn't be unfair to say that wherever we draw the line is a House Rule, that both Drew and I are arguing our House Rules as if they were official. But Drew is arguing that anything other than his personal interpretation is a House Rule, and HIS personal interpretation is cold hard fact. So that kind of compromise is out.

To me, the best way to tell which rules are shared is to assume sharing as a default, that all the rules are compatible [u]unless otherwise specified[/i], because it's all supposed to be one Megaversal System. The fact that Palladium will often direct us in one game to use the rules from another game supports this view, IMO.
To Drew, the ONLY rules in the Megaversal System are those rules which are repeated verbatim in each and every Megaversal Game, apparently, and anything other than those repeated-verbatim rules is a House Rule unless the canon rules specifically direct you to use them.
Which seems needlessly technical and complex, and that's NOT Palladium's M/O.
Their M/O is being rather loosey-goosey about rules, with Kevin Siembieda often responding to official rule questions with answers along the lines of "just do whatever you like."

Does that clarify?

Edit:
On the back of the RMB, and presumably other games as well, it clearly states:
Compatible with Heroes Unlimited, TMNT & Other Strangeness, Beyond The Supernatural, Mechanoids, and Palladium's other role-playing games.
It makes a ton more sense to me to assume that "compatible with" means "compatible with as a default, unless otherwise directed" NOT "incompatible as a default, compatible ONLY when and where you're told they're specifically compatible."

They're stand-alone games that are officially compatible with each other.
Is that entirely clear? No.
But it does make it clear that "stand-alone games" does NOT necessarily mean "incompatible as a default."

[Killer Cyborg]

To refresh people's memory about my supporting citations....

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. And since the RCB1(older) was published after the RMB citations from it take precedence. Not that it really matters the same text is in both RCB1s.

Great.
NOW all you have to do is demonstrate that "stand-alone games" means "their rules are not shared with other games in the Megaversal System unless specifically directed," instead of "Games where you don't need to use all the rules of the Megaversal System, which are scattered among many different Megaversal games and books."

IF you do that, you'll have something.

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 do 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.

To refresh people's memory about what I've been saying..."All the PB games are individual games, not just settings of one big game.[/quote]

They're individual games. That's a fact nobody is disputing.
They are also all part of the Megaversal System, and THAT is the important part.
You are assuming without evidence that the rules for Dual Classing are not part of the shared rules, then stating your assumption as fact.
Demonstrate that the rules for Dual Classing are not part of the shared rules, and you'll have something.
Until then...

Maybe KC should stop making retorical attacks and post a refresher his canon citations. That he claims support his claims. So the citations can be seen side by side.

You "left" the conversation the last time I did that, rather than addressing any of my points or citations.
Maybe you can bother to scroll back, and pick up where we left off, rather than asking me to retype everything that you've already chosen to ignore?

[edit]Note that "uses the same megaversal system' (which just means they use the basic game mechanics system) is not saying "the rules form the different games are so interchangable they are effectively one game."

Different games, same SYSTEM.
Do you get the difference between games and systems?
If yes, then quit conflating the two.
If no, then I can explain.

[Daeroos]

I would like to thank everyone whom answered for the time they took in responding, and the fact that the responses seemed generally positive and without some of the aggression some of he previous posts seemed to have between members.

While you have made some good points, I guess my biggest thought (and this is, I will stress, my thought) is that to say a game is "A stand alone game" while at the same time saying "there needs to be proof not to use rules from other games" really perplexes me, especially as it is a direct contradiction as far as language goes. The term stand alone game means specifically that you need only that game and the rule books for it to play that game. So to then further go on and say the rules from some other game (no matter how similar) automatically work in that game, is where my distinction of something such as RAW comes into play. It specifically calls them stand alone, which if they stand alone and someone never picks up the books for the other games, then that rule does not exist as it does not appear in any of the stand alone game books.

As I have said, I do allow my characters to change their class (and probably broader than the intent of the rules written in PF as I allow all kinds of weird stuff, as I really do feel Rifts is the game system where anything can be possible) as well as multi-class and a whole bunch of other things, but it is something I acknowledge isn't from Rifts (although I also tell/warn all my players that I allow things from pretty much any available Palladium source as I am a huge fan of it ever since discovering it back in the mid 90s, and then I have some homebrew rules I use as well, as I don't want to catch anyone off guard). I should also say that I am quite a fan of hearing other sides to things and debating (as long as it is civil and does not become hostile) to see how different peoples thoughts and words can help to shape the views of myself and others and hopefully we can all come away with some other thoughts and ideas besides the ones we went into the debate with.

I guess I just don't see the issue with saying that it is more RAI (since Palladium seems to really push that everything can be and possibly should be, in their hope, interconnected) as opposed to RAW. If each game is stand alone (and many concede that point), then what stand alone specifically means is this game can be played without any additional content from other games. That being the case, language would state that you cannot then say a rule from another source outside of that game is RAW (since it isn't written in that game).

It seems that sometimes, some people stick to their guns and argue because they don't want to make that simple statement of "maybe I was wrong" in regards to what a rule actually is, and honestly from what I've seen and learned of him Kevin would probably scold all of us for arguing about rules being written as his biggest things seems to be the imagination and creativity that goes into it all and the fun people can have playing the games. In any of the interviews I've ever seen him give, I've never heard him worry about the rules, he'll say things like "well, this is what happened" or "this is how I did it at that point" showing that he changes his views and rules (which is kind of expected with how long he's been running and developing these games). I've also never heard him say, while talking to others "you're wrong to do it that way". He just accepts that they do it differently and that is fun for them.

Sorry, I went on a bit of a rambling tangent there as opposed to my main point of why not just say "this rule isn't from Rifts, it's from PF, but it is really easy and appropriate to import if you want to, it's what I do" ?

Thank you all again for your time and I do hope that everyone is being as safe as possible out in this crazy world of our own.

[Killer Cyborg]

I would like to thank everyone whom answered for the time they took in responding, and the fact that the responses seemed generally positive and without some of the aggression some of he previous posts seemed to have between members.

While you have made some good points, I guess my biggest thought (and this is, I will stress, my thought) is that to say a game is "A stand alone game" while at the same time saying "there needs to be proof not to use rules from other games" really perplexes me, especially as it is a direct contradiction as far as language goes.

The term stand alone game means specifically that you need only that game and the rule books for it to play that game. So to then further go on and say the rules from some other game (no matter how similar) automatically work in that game, is where my distinction of something such as RAW comes into play. It specifically calls them stand alone, which if they stand alone and someone never picks up the books for the other games, then that rule does not exist as it does not appear in any of the stand alone game books.

The bolded portion is the key.
I agree with that definition, but the key word is "Need," as opposed to "are officially sanctioned to use."

Take Beyond The Supernatural (1st Edition) for example.
The back of the book promises:
-Everything you need to play
-A complete role-playing game of Horror

I consider both of these things to be true, BUT neither of these things mean that the rules in later BtS supplements aren't canon, that they need house rules to implement or integrate, or are in any other way not intended to be usable in the game Beyond The Supernatural.
Does the book have everything you need to play? Yes. You can play using just the BtS core book.
Is the book a complete RPG? Yes. Again, you can play using just the BtS core book.
But while you don't need to use later BtS supplements, and even though you can play the game without them, any rules introduced in later BtS supplements are still canon rules for that game.

The Rifts Main Book also promises on p. 1:
A complete new Role-Playing Game
This book is--taken in a vacuum--a stand-alone game. It is complete, and needs no other supplements. But boy-howdy does it HAVE them if anybody wants to expand beyond Need. There are countless rules for Rifts that are NOT in the RMB and not in RUE (which, btw, also promises on p. 1 that the book is "a complete role-playing game").
The rules are canon.
They are canon for use in Rifts.
They are canon for use in Rifts even though the core book itself is a "compete" and/or "stand-alone" game without those later rules, a game that can be played without any other Rifts books, supplements, minis, etc.

I see the Megaversal System as working the same way.
Rifts Ultimate Edition is a stand-alone game; you need no other supplements or games to play Rifts. But there are supplements and supplemental rules that you can also officially use if you wish.
The game of "Rifts" as an entirety with all the Rifts game books is also a complete game. But Rifts can be--and is intended to be--supplemented by any other Palladium games in the Megaversal System, if one so desires.
You don't NEED them, but they're still there.

That's why Rifts and PFRPG being "stand-alone games" doesn't mean that their rules aren't intended to be used with each other (unless otherwise indicated) as supplemental rules, there to enhance the game when added to it, in the same way that all the Rifts supplements already add to it IF you choose to use them, and the same way that all the PFRPG supplements add to that game IF you choose to use them.

You CAN play Rifts without using the Dual Class rules from PFRPG. Many people DO play this way, especially to start.
But Rifts can also be played WITH those rules; they're there to be used in Rifts if anybody wants them to be.
Just like you CAN play Rifts with just the RMB. But you can also play Rifts with the RMB, SB1, VK, CB1, New West, Rifts: England, and so on, and so forth.
Having the option to do more than what's just in the core book doesn't mean that those options are house rules, or anything else.

Does that clarify things?

I guess I just don't see the issue with saying that it is more RAI (since Palladium seems to really push that everything can be and possibly should be, in their hope, interconnected) as opposed to RAW.

RAI vs RAW is a whole can of worms in of itself.
If those terms have come up in this conversation previously, I didn't notice.
As far as I know the discussion is whether or not using the PFRPG Dual Class rules in Rifts is a "House Rule" or not.

Sorry, I went on a bit of a rambling tangent there as opposed to my main point of why not just say "this rule isn't from Rifts, it's from PF, but it is really easy and appropriate to import if you want to, it's what I do" ?

If you read the early posts, most people answered the OP's question by directing them to the PFRPG rules.
Drew also did this, BUT he was the one person who felt compelled to draw a line in the sand and declare: These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules.

Why couldn't he just have pointed out where the rules are, and left the OP to make their own decision as to whether the PFRPG rules are "house rules" or "RAW" or "RAI" or whatever?
All he needed to do to answer the question was to just say "Palladium's only generalized rules for changing classes are in PFRPG."
But he felt the need to go beyond what was necessary, to declare that anybody with a different interpretation was WRONG, and then to argue with them about it.

I specifically asked him to let it go.

This is far from the first time the issue of using rules from one game in the Megaversal System in a different Megaversal game has come up. And it won't be the last, I'll wager.
Drew knows that this is one of those recurring arguments where neither side has ever convinced the other to budge from their view, and where there is no hard answer from Palladium.
We're left guessing, and Drew's guess is different from a lot of the rest of us.
Based on the same RAW, he assumes a different RAI.

And he felt the need to argue about this, so we're arguing.

"Which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
I don't like it any more than you men."

[Prysus]

I would like to thank everyone whom answered for the time they took in responding, and the fact that the responses seemed generally positive and without some of the aggression some of he previous posts seemed to have between members.

Greetings and Salutations. I'd like to think, in general, we're a fairly good group. We often argue, but for the most part I'd like to think it's just some of us talking over the topic to ascertain the truth of the rules.

While you have made some good points, I guess my biggest thought (and this is, I will stress, my thought) is that to say a game is "A stand alone game" while at the same time saying "there needs to be proof not to use rules from other games" really perplexes me, especially as it is a direct contradiction as far as language goes. The term stand alone game means specifically that you need only that game and the rule books for it to play that game.

I'll see if I an try to explain. I'll give a couple of examples.

1: There's a game called Swashbuckling Adventures that uses the D&D 3.0 OGL rules. The setting is stand alone, and you're not going to randomly sail to Faerun or Ravenloft. The setting also has some specific rules for things like ship combat. BUT, if you want to know the rules how to play, you still need to use D&D book. Now, Swashbuckling Adventures at least references the OGL for rules, but I'm using it here as an example of separate setting, but still same rules.

2: Palladium Fantasy Second Edition (PF2) core book (and presumably RUE, but that one is a bit more complicated) is designed as a stand alone game. You can play with just the core book. You don't need any other books. However, if I was going to play an Illusionist (PF Book 2: Old Ones), you could argue that it's a house rule because the book doesn't tell me to use the PF2 rule book, and PF2 rule book is a stand alone book. Ergo, it's a house rule to use any of the source material because I only needed the main rule book to play, and the other book doesn't specifically tell me to use the PF2 core book. I could argue there's a level of truth to that statement, just not in any meaningful way. You could say I can't play an Illusionist without G.M. permission, which would also be true because you can't play anything at all without G.M. permission, but it, again, lacks any real meaning to say.

And you're probably thinking that a sourcebook is different because ... but stop and ask yourself why? Is it because you find it logical instead of something explicitly stated? If it's any equivalent of using sense, ask yourself why where you draw the line is the only correct way and everyone else is perplexing if they draw that line somewhere else. And I'm not saying these things to try and argue needlessly, but I want to provide small little ideas to get you to think about it from a different vantage. if you simply dismiss my statements as trolling or an attempt to argue, you won't get any value. My goal is to start a train of thought, and hopefully understand that things aren't always so cut and dry. Palladium, in particular, tends to have very blurry lines, and that leads to a lot of arguments/discussions on it.

I can equally say I find it perplexing that someone can't understand how a statement of using the same rules means you're not supposed to use the same rules.

So to then further go on and say the rules from some other game (no matter how similar) automatically work in that game, is where my distinction of something such as RAW comes into play.

I don't think anyone said that all the rules in other games automatically apply. There are several incidents when a rule for a setting specifically does NOT apply to other settings. Also, I think most of us would agree if there's a contradiction between Rifts and another setting that the rules for Rifts apply first (though there has been a debate or two on this one as well). What's being argued is that if another setting has a rule, and neither the rule nor Rifts have any reason that rule doesn't apply, then the rule applies.

And if that's what you meant, that's fine. I just want to make sure we're clear and on the same page, more or less.

It specifically calls them stand alone, which if they stand alone and someone never picks up the books for the other games, then that rule does not exist as it does not appear in any of the stand alone game books.

RUE does NOT have rules for hypothermia. Rifts World Book 20: Canada has rules for hypothermia. If someone doesn't own Rifts Canada, are there official rules for hypothermia? If stand alone means if someone else doesn't have to pick up the other books, and the Rifts core book can be played fine without rules for hypothermia, then the answer should be the rules for hypothermia in Rifts cease to be official based on ownership. And if not owning a book is not grounds to remove official status, then the premise for your dismissal of stand alone doesn't work as well either.

If each game is stand alone (and many concede that point), then what stand alone specifically means is this game can be played without any additional content from other games.

My main point of contention (though I agree with most of what you said as an individual) is that the quote from Rifts Conversion Book One Revised doesn't say that the rules from the other settings don't apply. The quote specifically says they share the basic rules.

You can play the RUE without needing hypothermia rules, and you can play RUE without needing multi-classing rules. However, if you're using those rules (and Rifts does have NPC that are multi-classed), then you rules from additional books.

It seems that sometimes, some people stick to their guns and argue because they don't want to make that simple statement of "maybe I was wrong" in regards to what a rule actually is ...

For the most part, I agree with you. And while I agree with you in principle, I don't think the statements are as clear as you seem to think they are. I'm more of the mindset that if you call one a house rule, then you have to call the other ruling a house rule as well.

Sorry, I went on a bit of a rambling tangent there as opposed to my main point of why not just say "this rule isn't from Rifts, it's from PF, but it is really easy and appropriate to import if you want to, it's what I do" ?

Typically, I'd say that's what we do. In this particular thread, the Original Poster (OP) had a question about the rules. At no point did they ask for their location. But, maybe, the person didn't know and that's why they had questions. The problem really started when the locations was provided it was followed by the statement: "These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules."

Now something not applying to Rifts unless the GM allows it is true regardless, and that could go for playing a C.S. character as the G.M. could disallow it from their campaigns entirely. I'll set that aside for now and focus on the rest of the statement. Instead of a positive: "It's is really easy and appropriate to import if you want to" we got the negative: "These rules do not apply to the Rifts game." This ends being a negative and restrictive comment, and more likely to cause people to respond in a negative way. Furthermore, it adds an additional rules component which is (in my opinion) unnecessary to even start in this thread (does the rule apply to Rifts). Don't get me wrong, sometimes you just can't win and no matter what you say someone will find offense.

Negative statement will get more grief. Stating there's only one way the rules can be interpreted when the books are a bit murky is also more likely to lead to arguments. Sometimes, less information is better instead of adding unnecessary statements which can more easily be debated, especially when those additional statements don't actually contribute to the thread. So, for example, the statement I quoted above I believe could've easily been left off and no one would have been suddenly confused, and we'd probably be on our merry way by now (maybe, there were a few other similar add-ons that may have caused different debates).

Thank you all again for your time and I do hope that everyone is being as safe as possible out in this crazy world of our own.

Thanks, and I hope everything is great for you as well. Farewell and safe journeys.


P.S. Glancing at Killer Cyborg's post (which posted while I was typing), looks like he made a lot of similar points. But I spend the last hour plus typing, and I'm not going to delete it all now.

[Killer Cyborg]

P.S. Glancing at Killer Cyborg's post (which posted while I was typing), looks like he made a lot of similar points. But I spend the last hour plus typing, and I'm not going to delete it all now.

You said a couple things that I either didn't say, or didn't say as well:
I can equally say I find it perplexing that someone can't understand how a statement of using the same rules means you're not supposed to use the same rules.

YES! Exactly. Palladium repeatedly tells us that these games are all part of the same system, and that they're compatible.
How could that NOT mean that they're all part of the same system, and that they're all compatible (unless otherwise indicated)?
I don't get it.
But in these discussions the people involved are often different proverbial Blind Men discussing the same elephant from different angles, unclear on how anybody else would come to a different conclusion than they have.

The problem really started when the locations was provided it was followed by the statement: "These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules."
Now something not applying to Rifts unless the GM allows it is true regardless, and that could go for playing a C.S. character as the G.M. could disallow it from their campaigns entirely.

This was a solid point that I didn't clearly see, much less broach, so I'm very glad you spoke up.
As a GM, I wouldn't let anybody use PFRPG rules to roll up their Rifts character without my say-so.
BUT as a GM I typically discount any number of RIFTS books, rules, classes, gear, spells, powers, psionics, races, etc. etc., and I don't think that's at all unusual. Most people don't play Rifts as "anything always goes." The GM always--and is intended to--restrict which stuff applies and which doesn't.
It's always a bit Mother May I when dealing with a GM, even when dealing with undeniably canon material within a single game, so pointing out that using the Dual Class rules are a Mother May I situation doesn't really mean much, if anything.
I'm glad you pointed that out; it's caused me to see things from a slightly different angle.

[Fenris2020]

P.S. Glancing at Killer Cyborg's post (which posted while I was typing), looks like he made a lot of similar points. But I spend the last hour plus typing, and I'm not going to delete it all now.

You said a couple things that I either didn't say, or didn't say as well:
I can equally say I find it perplexing that someone can't understand how a statement of using the same rules means you're not supposed to use the same rules.

YES! Exactly. Palladium repeatedly tells us that these games are all part of the same system, and that they're compatible.
How could that NOT mean that they're all part of the same system, and that they're all compatible (unless otherwise indicated)?
I don't get it.
But in these discussions the people involved are often different proverbial Blind Men discussing the same elephant from different angles, unclear on how anybody else would come to a different conclusion than they have.

The problem really started when the locations was provided it was followed by the statement: "These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules."
Now something not applying to Rifts unless the GM allows it is true regardless, and that could go for playing a C.S. character as the G.M. could disallow it from their campaigns entirely.

This was a solid point that I didn't clearly see, much less broach, so I'm very glad you spoke up.
As a GM, I wouldn't let anybody use PFRPG rules to roll up their Rifts character without my say-so.
BUT as a GM I typically discount any number of RIFTS books, rules, classes, gear, spells, powers, psionics, races, etc. etc., and I don't think that's at all unusual. Most people don't play Rifts as "anything always goes." The GM always--and is intended to--restrict which stuff applies and which doesn't.
It's always a bit Mother May I when dealing with a GM, even when dealing with undeniably canon material within a single game, so pointing out that using the Dual Class rules are a Mother May I situation doesn't really mean much, if anything.
I'm glad you pointed that out; it's caused me to see things from a slightly different angle.

I'm pretty much "anything goes", though as discussed in my post in the "Which Rules..." thread, players need to read my hand-out on my rules interpretations and which conflicting rules apply to my campaigns.

[Killer Cyborg]

P.S. Glancing at Killer Cyborg's post (which posted while I was typing), looks like he made a lot of similar points. But I spend the last hour plus typing, and I'm not going to delete it all now.

You said a couple things that I either didn't say, or didn't say as well:
I can equally say I find it perplexing that someone can't understand how a statement of using the same rules means you're not supposed to use the same rules.

YES! Exactly. Palladium repeatedly tells us that these games are all part of the same system, and that they're compatible.
How could that NOT mean that they're all part of the same system, and that they're all compatible (unless otherwise indicated)?
I don't get it.
But in these discussions the people involved are often different proverbial Blind Men discussing the same elephant from different angles, unclear on how anybody else would come to a different conclusion than they have.

The problem really started when the locations was provided it was followed by the statement: "These rule do not apply to the Rifts game unless the GM allows them to in her/his house rules."
Now something not applying to Rifts unless the GM allows it is true regardless, and that could go for playing a C.S. character as the G.M. could disallow it from their campaigns entirely.

This was a solid point that I didn't clearly see, much less broach, so I'm very glad you spoke up.
As a GM, I wouldn't let anybody use PFRPG rules to roll up their Rifts character without my say-so.
BUT as a GM I typically discount any number of RIFTS books, rules, classes, gear, spells, powers, psionics, races, etc. etc., and I don't think that's at all unusual. Most people don't play Rifts as "anything always goes." The GM always--and is intended to--restrict which stuff applies and which doesn't.
It's always a bit Mother May I when dealing with a GM, even when dealing with undeniably canon material within a single game, so pointing out that using the Dual Class rules are a Mother May I situation doesn't really mean much, if anything.
I'm glad you pointed that out; it's caused me to see things from a slightly different angle.

I'm pretty much "anything goes", though as discussed in my post in the "Which Rules..." thread, players need to read my hand-out on my rules interpretations and which conflicting rules apply to my campaigns.

I can do and have done "Anything Goes," but usually I have a specific adventure I want to run that simply won't work with certain stuff in it.
Anything Goes can certainly be fun!