From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 19 14:04:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08071 for ; Mon, 19 May 1997 14:04:10 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02437 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 1997 12:59:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:59:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199705191759.MAA02437@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #176 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, May 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 176 In this digest: IN> [Long] IN Mechanics mods RE: IN> A few sins RE: IN>Seven Deadly Suns Re: IN> Seven Deadly Lists Re: IN> Celestial Hearts in literature? Re: IN> Angels for everything Re: IN> IN: ArchAngels of Myer-Briggs IN> Stupid Celestial Tricks.... IN> d66: An Alternate In Nomine Dice System Re: IN> [Long] IN Mechanics mods RE: IN> A new Superior.... sort of Re: IN> Essence and the nature of reality Re: IN> IN Mechanics mods Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #173 RE: IN> A few sins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:50:11 +1000 From: Mark Grundy Subject: IN> [Long] IN Mechanics mods If you recall, my first posting to this list was an `I can't get this game to work' kind of posting. We're through most of the woods now I think, but my players have asked if we can improve on some things. In particular: * Can we relate the level of outcome more closely to the competence of the character and the difficulty of the task? Under standard use, a `1' on a check digit is a fairly wimpy result, even if the task is easy and the character quite competent. This is particularly frustrating when you commit tons of essence to a critical song, or spend extra time to get a crucial skill just right. * The physical combat system seems broken to my players. Dodge acts like armour; strength acts like skill, and damage only depends on equipment; not stats. The excuse `it comes out the same in the end', doesn't wash with my group -- they want the combat to look credible round by round; to evoke narrative that helps describe their characters. We're not getting that at the moment. * Can we make angels more `magical'? At the moment the magic is very mechanical, with all effects and costs very precise. We're looking for ways of making miracles more subtle, flexible and inventive, and maybe simplifying the song rules to reduce the number of times you need to consult the book in play. * Disturbances are also very mechanical, and sometimes cramp the plot. Can we loosen them up? The ideas below are things we've kicked around, and half baked ideas I'm thinking while I write. I'm seeking more ideas from anyone who's thought about this stuff, or who has discovered workarounds. For anyone who loves the IN game system as is, and can't conceive of it being better -- I'm glad! But this mail message isn't for you -- you're welcome to read it for curiosity of course, but you're not welcome to complain to me about how nitpicky I am, or how hard my players suck. :) Anyway, here they are: Ditching the digit For marketing alone, I think that the idea of a `d666' is nifty, but really, it's two separate rolls. One is a standard 2d6 skill roll. The other is a 1d6 outcome roll. Most game systems calculate outcome quality by some calculation on the margin of success. Even GURPS does this, and I really wonder why the IN designers departed from this tried and true methodology. The problem is that the 1d6 is crucial to knowing what happens. Yet unlike the 2d6 skill roll, it is not at all influenced by the situation to date. It's utterly random and free from anything that has happened before in the game, and this leaves every single outcome in the game entirely unconnected to anything else. My players are frustrated. They want to go back to the old days of `made it by 5 -- critical success!' At least this is connected to your character concept via your skill level. The only alternative is to `load' the check digit with situational modifiers -- eg, successes on easy tasks get bigger bonuses; failures get reduced check digit values. Or what about: fighting an old enemy, or divine inspiration increases the check digit values, raising the risk? I'm still trying to think this one through, and welcome suggestions. I'm happy to keep the check digit in spite of player pressure, but it really needs to deliver some story benefit to make it worth keeping. Beefing the Beefcakes To date in my IN play, there's nothing I've hated worse than my character dodging a wild swing from a demon with a lump of roof-beam, only to get hit anyway, for marginally less damage. Dodge shouldn't work like armour. It should stop you getting hit at all. Why not use the dodge outcome to reduce the other character's skill, rather than reduce damage? That way, you actually stand a chance of surviving some slow-moving heavy damage attacks. There are some games where guns rule, and melee weapons are just for style -- cyberpunk is arguably one of these, but our In Nomine game isn't. We'd much rather have our celestials duking it out with fists, claws and two-by-fours than spraying each other with AK-47's. We really need strength to count in what our characters can knock down, rend and tear. It needs to factor into damage in a uniform way, and we're not satisfied with the `special cases' for additional damage outlined in the combat system. A good inspiration for us is Feng Shui, in which a martial artist delivers just as much collateral damage as all but the most dedicated gun-toter. Superhero games do this too. The easiest thing to do would be to just add the strength into the weapon power somehow, and raise the power of guns to keep pace, but this makes the game too lethal. Feng Shui and other superheroish games dampen the damage back down again through innate toughness stats, resulting in a game where strength counts, but combats still span multiple rounds. That'd be a cool option for IN too, except I'm not sure how to do it gracefully: 2 * Corp forces as toughness? Ideas are welcome. Getting the `Ick' out of Magick My group wants angels and demons to have a plethora of cool abilities -- surprising abilities that delight and entertain the players when they see them. This can't be done off a shopping list. You need the creative input of players to find new wrinkles on generic abilities, and the meticulous mechanics of songs and attunements are cramping our style -- not by what they offer, which is exciting, but by what they exclude: loads of other exciting ideas. Something we've been doing lately is to generate origin stories for each of our celestials. For instance one angel `Gunther' was originally Ithuriel -- a Cherub tasked to tend the garden of Eden, and demoted by Gabriel for allowing Satan to slip in unseen. In modern times he evolved to become a servant of Novalis, whose job was to look after landscape gardens to the betterment of beauty in the world. Word-bound or not, you'd expect that such a character would have dozens of minor miracles up his gardening-gloves -- ways of inducing snails to eat only diseased leaves... ways of knowing if a plant was sick, just by looking at it... instinctive knowledge of food and medicinal plants and their uses... ways of keeping flowers fresh after they have been picked, or of making flowers blossom out of season... attunements that he would share with many other of his kind, and that make no disturbance in the Symphony at all, but that say very clearly: Something Wonderful is Happening Here. It's clear that character concept drives this need, and I can't see any reason to deprive players of the creative opportunities in their concepts -- especially if they're things that have little or no influence on conflict scenes, but that enhance the `look and feel' of the game. That's Idea 1. Idea 2 is to iron out the patchwork durations, disturbances, distances and Essence costs in the songs (and to a lesser degree, in attunements). While it's possible to get each player to write down the meticulous details of each of their songs, this `clunkiness' really gets in the way of fast, creative play. When you look at their game purposes, there are only really four things that songs are designed to do, and most songs do only one of these as their main purpose: * help win fights * help deal with people * help move stuff around * help find out stuff The game balance constraint is that songs shouldn't provide instant solutions to significant plot events, but they can help with a minor or major advantage in plot development, depending on how creative you are, how much oomph you put into them, and how well you roll. So why not just fit the mechanics to the level of advantage? What does it matter how many pounds the Celestial song of movement can teleport this time, and over what distance, as long as it offers a no more than reasonable advantage in the story? Why does the Symphony have to care about atoms and pounds and miles, when what really matters in the grand scheme anyway is fate and destiny? So, how much essence should songs cost? Well, surely that should depend on how much you want to meddle with the natural course of events. Big story effects should cost big essence and make big disturbance. Little story effects should cost little essence and make little noise. Who determines the story effect? Why, the GM of course -- he's the one who knows what the story is about. How do players rate the difficulty of song or attunement success? Well, the GM sets a modifier based on the world's `natural predilection' to go a certain way. Players push their skill up to attempt this roll by pouring in essence. Have a base cost of 1 essence for all songs, and 0 essence for all attunements, and you're ready to play. For durations, there are only a few levels you need worry about: * ``To finish instantly'' (eg healing) * ``To finish some time before the end of the combat'' * ``To finish at the end of the combat'' * ``To finish after the scene ends'' * ``To finish after the game ends'' * ``To finish after the campaign ends'' (or not at all) Let the player pick how long, and charge accordingly. Obviously, there will be times when the player hasn't the essence or skill to get what he desires, and will have to settle on something lesser. This fits in with idea 1 above, in that you can broaden out attunements to include anything justifiable by a character's background, as long as it's nothing more than a special effect. As a GM, you can either waive an attunement roll for this stuff, or give 'em a roll with a modifier for game aesthetics. Delightful Disturbance In the same vein as the magic ideas above, what about varying the disturbances for killing and injuring humans, and for property damage? Here are some short examples to give you an idea: * Killing humans is bad * Unless they're about to die anyway * Or they've sold their souls to hell * And then only demons notice the screams * Angels always notice the death of innocence, no matter the reason * And beauty destroyed will bring them running * The bodies of those who died by violence tell their own tales to those that touch them * Even humans can create disturbance if they're divinely or infernally inspired. * Particularly poignant disturbances can last for years. * Tethers don't generate disturbance if they're not influencing the world in any way. * Celestials may recover additional essence in places whose disturbance conforms to their nature. - ----- Well, that's the end of the ideas for now. I welcome criticisms and anticipated problems, but more than anything I welcome alternatives that we mightn't have considered. If you end up trying any of these ideas yourself, or have already tried them, I'd like to hear about that too. Mark - ------ Dr Mark Grundy, DCS, Phone: +61-6-249 3785 Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0010 CRC for Advanced Computational Systems, The Australian National University, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy 0200 Australia Email: Mark.Grundy@anu.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:56:17 +0100 From: Niall Teasdale Subject: RE: IN> A few sins Ahem... [begin lecture mode] The Bible story dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah is genesis 19. The actual passage in question is Genesis 19:5-8 (those interested can go away and read it), which (in the King James Bible) has the line "Bring them out that we may know them." This is the demand of the crowd gathered outside Lot's house, and they are talking about two strangers (angels as it happens) who Lot has taken into his home. Now people tend to think that, in the Bible, 'to know' is meant in a carnal sense. In fact in only 10 out of 943 occurrences in the Old Testament is this the case. Genesis 19 is the only one where it has been taken to mean homosexual sex. In Luke 10:10-13, it is stated that the "sin of Sodom" is inhospitality, while Ezekiel 16:49-50 says it was also failure to care for the poor. Jesus is quoted twice (Luke 10:10-12 and Mathew 10:14-15) saying that the city was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality. The homosexuality spin on the story came from early Christians who were keen on sexual purity (for those of any inclination). The original story was written around 1400BC, so it was a long time before the message changed. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that it was first pushed as an anti-homosexuality message in the Middle Ages, when the problem of large, same-sex communities (monasteries) became something the Church was quite concerned with. [end lecture mode] All this comes from a book I managed to lay my hands on: "Sacred Origins of Profound Things" by Charles Panati It has wonderful bits and bobs in it, a positive mine of useful tidbits on religious issues. For example: the halo was originally banned from Christian religious art, because it's a pagan symbol. It's also the origin of the crown worn by early kings, they tended to be related in some way to the gods, so they had an artificial halo. The Crown of Thorns was intended to mock Jesus in his role as King of the Jews. It wasn't until the seventh century in Rome that halos began to crown statuary with papal approval. Why? Because it stopped the faces of the saints from being marked by bird droppings. Niall. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick O'Duffy [SMTP:redfern@thehub.com.au] > Sent: Friday, May 16, 1997 10:11 PM > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN> A few sins > > Niall Teasdale wrote: > > > > BTW. In the "Deluge" adventure seed I read in the In Nomine > > Collection, it states that homosexuality was the Sin of Sodom. > > This isn't actually the case, the Sin of Sodom was being nasty > > to strangers (inhospitality). For those who wish to flame me on > > this one, the source is the Bible. > > > Ummm... (trying not to start religious flame war) as I recall things > from my Uni religion classes, the 'sin of Sodom' was being _real_ > inhospitible - we talking forcible rape and killing of strangers. > Said > rape included the act of sodomy. As I remember things, at least. > Before I get hassled, I'll just point out that I'm bisexual, and > don't > have a big problem about the alleged sin of Sodom. I think the one I > recall is a lot less pleasant... > > -- > Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia > > We are our own wicked gods > With little "g's" and big dicks > Sadistic and constantly inflicting > A slow demise > > MARILYN MANSON, "My Monkey" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:05:55 +0100 From: Niall Teasdale Subject: RE: IN>Seven Deadly Suns Just as you say, Gregory the Great, but he was building on the work of a Greek monastic theologian, Evagrius of Pontus. He stated that there were eight offenses and wicked human passions: gluttony lust avarice sadness anger acedia (spiritual sloth) vainglory pride Gregory folded vainlory into pride, acedia into sadness, and added envy. Then he invented the ordering: pride envy anger sadness avarice gluttony lust Sloth replaced sadness in the seventeenth century, so the list we see today isn't as old as you might think. Niall. > -----Original Message----- > From: Earl Wajenberg [SMTP:earlw@mc.com] > Sent: Friday, May 16, 1997 10:25 PM > To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com > Subject: Re: IN>Seven Deadly Suns > > I just did a Web-surf to check, and yes, the list of Seven Deadly Sins > > was composed by Pope Gregory the Great, born 540, elected 590, died > 604. > So the list is pretty old. > > Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:38:19 -0600 (CST) From: "The Incredibly Unremarkable Cliffy Q. Scrimshaw" Subject: Re: IN> Seven Deadly Lists On Sun, 18 May 1997, Moriah - Steve Jackson Games wrote: > >From: John Maurer > >Subject: Re: IN>Seven Deadly Suns > > > >I think the only lists of nifty things in the Bible are a) Things that love > >is (Love is Always Patient, etc. Etc.) and b) The fruits of the spirit > >(prophesy, speaking in tongues, the like) The list of things that love is can be found in (I think) I Corinthians 13. "Life is like a yo-yo: .-. it has its ups and downs, __ __| | plus a few loops now & then." \ V / (() --Matt, a.k.a. CliffyQS@Earthling.net |_| ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:09:47 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Celestial Hearts in literature? I don't recall *celestial* hearts, but the idea of storing your heart (or some other palpable emblem of your vitality) somewhere safe is a very old one in folklore. Typically, you have an evil wizard or monster who is invulnerable or unkillable because his heart is somewhere else -- therefore, you can't really attack his life. Usually, he can be tricked into boasting about this, including a detailed list of the barriers around his heart, whereon the hero or heroine undertakes a quest, locates the heart, and snuffs the bad guy. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:43:19 -0400 From: "Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki" Subject: Re: IN> Angels for everything >> Munchkin Player: "I walk out onto the lawn and call forth the ten >>thousand angels watching over the grass to assist me!" > >That assumes that each angel is a force 9 angel, which I doubt. In >fact, if they all got together and organized (which would be hard >to get them to do unless you could convince them you were on *their* >side), they might have about 1 force between them. If that. Not to mention that they might be so solidly Word-bound to their blades of grass that they wouldn't _do_ anything, even if asked. "Huh? Help you attack a demon? Is he stepping on any grass? No? Go away." - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:57:51 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> IN: ArchAngels of Myer-Briggs > >Is it just me, or do the ArchAngels fall fairly > >orthogonally along the various Myer-Briggs axes? > > What? Myers and Briggs were a mother-daughter team of Jungian psychoanalysts who developed a system of classifying personalities, based on the earlier work done by their mentor, Carl Jung. Their system is rather popular just now. You have probably heard the terms "introvert" and "extrovert." These were from Jung's system. Myers and Briggs have a psychological test that places the testee on a numerical scale from extreem introversion to extreem extroversion. They also have three other scales: Intuitive vs. Sensible (working with ideas vs. working with concretes) Thinking vs. Feeling ("is it interesting?" vs. "is it evocative?") Perception vs. Judgement (playing by ear vs. using a system) Ignoring the quantitative scales and just flagging people as one end vs. the other, you have 16 possibilities, which Myers-Brigss fans write out in four-letter codes. ESTJ, for instance, is Extrovert, Sensible, Thinking, Judging. The opposite time is INFP, Introvert, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving. Dominic may be an ISTJ. Novalis may be an INFP. Maybe. Earl Wajenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 97 11:21 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> Stupid Celestial Tricks.... All this speculation on Kyrios and distributed Essence regeneration led me to the burning question: What happens to a celestial's Essence recovery if they're north of the Arctic Circle? [You're welcome, John....] - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Paul F. Strack" Subject: IN> d66: An Alternate In Nomine Dice System I've heard a number of people complain about one aspect of the In Nomine dice system: the fact that the Check Digit - and the level of success - seem to have little to do with the level of skill. Of course, this isn't completely true: higher skill means more chance of success, and a better chance of getting a positive check digit result, but some people find this less than compelling. A typical solution to this problem is to go to some sort of "margin of success" system; this is what is used in the GURPS - In Nomine rules. This system has problems of its own, however. In particular, people with high skill levels tend to almost *always* get high levels of success, more what you would expect. A character with a target of 11 would have an "average" level of success of 5, and levels of success as high as 8 would not be that unusual. In addition, this system involves more math, almost always an unpleasant thing :) So, I have come up with this alternate dice system, sort of a combination of both of the above, which I am calling the d66 system. The d66 System The player has a target number, as in the In Nomine system (usually attribute + skill), and rolls two different colored dice. One of the two dice is denoted the Check Die - as a convention, I'd suggest always using the non-white die. The player rolls both dice and adds them together: if the result is less than or equal to the target, the attempt is successful. If the result is more than target, the attempt fails. Regardless of success or failure, the face value of the Check Die becomes the Check Digit. If the result is a success, the Check Digit has the exact same meaning as in the usual In Nomine rules. For example, suppose the target is 8. Suppose that the player rolls a 4 on the check die, and a 2 on the non-check die. The total roll is 6, a success. The Check Digit is 4. If instead, you rolled a 5 on the non-check die, the total is 9, a failure. The Check Digit is still 4. In the case of failure, the meaning of the check digit must be reversed from the usual In Nomine rules. That is: a Check Digit of 6 is only a marginal failure, while a Check Digit of 1 is a terrible failure. Just remember: high Check Digits are good, low are bad. Whether you succeed or fail, you want your Check Digit to be as high as possible. Automatic Success and Failure You can rule that a roll of 2 is always a success, albeit a marginal one with a Check Digit of 1. A roll of 12 is always a failure, although again a marginal one with a Check Digit of 6. If you want to retain something of the flavor of the original system, you can say that demons automatic *fail* on 2, and succeed on 12 (although again, in both cases, only marginally). Divine or infernal intervention is left to the GM. System Modification Two aspects of the original rules are changed slightly in this system. Targets above 12 are still almost always successful; the dice roll is mostly to Check Digit. The value of the target above 12 adds to the Check Digit, i.e. a target of 15 means a +3 bonus to the Check Digit. A character can be "risky" or "cautious", just as in the original rules, and get a -1 or +1 modifier to the target respectively. If you are risky and successful, you get a +1 bonus to the Check Digit. If you are risky and fail, you get a -1 penalty to the Check Digit. The reverse is true if you are cautious. Failed Check Digit Conversion In a system as "fuzzy" as In Nomine, I'd recommend using failed Check Digits as a general guideline rather than as a specific number - high Check Digits meaning lesser failures, low meaning worse. The In Nomine rules use the value of a failed Check Digit in several places, e.g. failure means you cannot try again for Check Digit hours. If you must use these rules, you can convert the new failed Check Digit back into the old as follows: Old Failed Check Digit = 7 - New Failed Check Digit In the above example, in the d66 system, failure would mean you can't try again 7 - Check Digit hours. Evaluation Under the d66 system, skill does have a more immediate effect on Check Digits. A person with a target of 7 is *much* more likely to get a Check Digit of 1 than they are to get a Check Digit of 6. If a 6 is rolled on the check die, they can only roll a 1 on the non-check die and still succeed. If they roll a 1 on the check die, *anything* on the non-check die will still result in a success. A person with a target of 3 will find that it is impossible to get Check Digit above 2. A person with a target of 11 will have the same chance of getting any Check Digit from 1 to 5, and only slightly less of a chance getting a Check Digit of 6. They will have a much better chance of getting a Check Digit of 6 than someone with a target of 7. No more math is needed in this system than in the original In Nomine rules. Just add the two dice, check for success or failure, and look at the check die for the Check Digit. In the d66 system, high Check Digit values become rarer than they are in the original rules. For example, a person with a target of 7 would get a Check Digit of 6 about 10% of the time in the old rules. In the d66 rules, they get a Check Digit of 6 about 3% of the time. Personally I see this as an advantage rather than a flaw of the d66 system. I think high Check Digit values tend to be too good and give out too much information, and I would prefer to minimize their occurence. Paul Strack | Madness takes its toll. pfstrack@math.unc.edu | Please have exact change. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ World of Darkness Page - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/wod.html In Nomine Page: INC2 - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/innom/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:57:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Paul F. Strack" Subject: Re: IN> [Long] IN Mechanics mods On Mon, 19 May 1997, Mark Grundy wrote: > If you recall, my first posting to this list was an `I can't get > this game to work' kind of posting. We're through most of the woods now > I think, but my players have asked if we can improve on some things. In > particular: > > * Can we relate the level of outcome more closely to the competence of > the character and the difficulty of the task? Under standard use, a > `1' on a check digit is a fairly wimpy result, even if the task is > easy and the character quite competent. This is particularly > frustrating when you commit tons of essence to a critical song, or > spend extra time to get a crucial skill just right. There is one way around this in the existing rules: being "risky" or "cautious". See p. 39 in the basic rules, under the Risk section. Being risky reduces your target by 1 but adds 1 to you Check Digit. If you have a high skill, the slightly increased chances of failure are outweighted by the benifits of increased Check Digits. For a more detailed "fix", see the d66 System that I just posted. > * The physical combat system seems broken to my players. Dodge acts > like armour; strength acts like skill, and damage only depends on > equipment; not stats. The excuse `it comes out the same in the end', > doesn't wash with my group -- they want the combat to look credible > round by round; to evoke narrative that helps describe their > characters. We're not getting that at the moment. I agree with you on Dodging. There is one simple fix here: making Dodging an opposed roll vs the Attack roll. That is, compare the Check Digit of the attack to the Check Digit of the Dodge *before* adding the weapon's power modifier. If the Dodge is better, the attack misses. If the attack is better, it hits, doing Check Digit + Power damage. A failed Dodge has no effect on damage. Whether the Dodge or the attack win "ties" depends on how leathel you want combat to be - personally, I lean towards Dodges winning ties. The Strength thing is not something I have a lot of problem with. To be honest, I kind of like "strength as skill". You could always add Strength to damage or (more reasonably) Strength/2, or something like that. > * Can we make angels more `magical'? At the moment the magic is very > mechanical, with all effects and costs very precise. We're looking > for ways of making miracles more subtle, flexible and inventive, and > maybe simplifying the song rules to reduce the number of times you > need to consult the book in play. Simplifying the song rules would be *very* nice, but a pretty massive undertaking. I'm not quite compulsive enough to launch into that on the spur of the moment :) You can get away with a lot by just ignoring the rules and going for feel rather than numbers. That is, roll the dice vs Force + Song Level and fudge the results, using the Check Digit as a general guideline. Encourage your players to come up with creative uses for songs. I am a little hesitant to make the songs *too* flexible. Having played with such a system (Mage), I find that this encourages players to rely to heavily on magic. Rather than trying to come up with real-world solutions to trouble, they work on bending the magic rules to resolve all their problems. I'd prefer to keep songs having a very specific function. There is already something of a mechanic for "angelic-task" related miracles. Word-bound angels get attunements related to the power of their word. They can share these attunements with their followers, but they also use the attunements themselves. This would allow your "garden angels" to have a lot of the necessary powers. > * Disturbances are also very mechanical, and sometimes cramp the plot. > Can we loosen them up? Again, I'd suggest throwing out the rules and fudging things. Let the players know what sort of things disturb the Symphony. When they do those things, decide whether you want somebody to hear the Disturbance, depending on whether it would help or hinder your plot. Use the Level of the Disturbance as a guideline, and roll some dice to give your players the appearance of randomness, but make your decision on a plot-related basis. Anyway, I hope you find these suggestions helpful. To be honest, my solution to the whole is was to ditch the rules entirely and fake the whole thing, using only the background. I do this with about every game I run, so it isn't an In Nomine specific thing :) Paul Paul Strack | Madness takes its toll. pfstrack@math.unc.edu | Please have exact change. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ World of Darkness Page - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/wod.html In Nomine Page: INC2 - http://www.math.unc.edu/Grads/pfstrack/innom/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:29:13 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: RE: IN> A new Superior.... sort of BURN THE ROGUE!! BURN THE ROGUE!! BURN THE ROGUE!! "Sire, the Prince desires that the Rogue be burned alive at the stake." "Nay." "Nay, sir?" "Nay, he must be flayed first, then burned alive at the stake." "I see. FLAY THE ROGUE! FLAY THE ROGUE!!!" - -------------- Dominic and Eli working together for the first time since... "Here, Dominic, would you mind holding him down?" "No, I don't mind at all." "Good, let me think of something really nasty we can do to him..." Perry M. Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:42:42 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: Re: IN> Essence and the nature of reality >>I'm not sure about Hinduism and Shinto. Too polytheistic. They might >>be under the Pagan Gods. Then again, maybe not. > >AFAIK, Hinduism has the idea of Brahma, of which all other dieties are >merely aspects - it seems to fit pretty well, after a sort. No idea >about Shinto. > >Personally though, I don't know that god is truely the creator of the >universe, at least not in my game. He's powerful, but if he created >the universe, he would have the power to end the War at any time; he >would not be on the side that's loosing ground. Why would God want to end the war? Wasn't Yahweh an ancient God of War before the whole Christ thing? I have theorized that struggle gives him power. For centuries the Church has involved itself in struggles and conflict, in the 11th 12th centures it sponcered the crusades. Missionary work leads to much conflict with the locals, the "Holy Land" is, well, war torn, I have always been told that I should turn to the Lord in times of need, meaning when I'm stuggling with something. Perhaps God derives His power from conflict, not necessarily from conflict itself, else we would have nothing but war, but from the resolution of conflict, the healing process. That may help explain the whole turnover from a God of War to a God of Peace with the birth of Jesus Christ. At least in terms of how mortals view him. Have not the Jews, followers of Yahweh, had to struggle throughout their existance? (Well, close enough...) Why end the war? Peace is not only a presence, but also an absence: of conflict. Perry M. Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 97 09:41:50 PDT From: Christopher Paul Subject: Re: IN> IN Mechanics mods Mark, Good questions, all. I'll try to keep my input brief: 1) Regarding the check digit: First, monster skills over 12 increase the check digit. Even if you are only competent, spend enough essence and you will get an impressive result. Second, Loosen up. We ignore the check digit a lot of the time. 2) Combat: Yes, IN combat has some problems. I have a fix at: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/grads/paul/innomine/rules.htm which we have been using, and works great. Check it out. It does what you suggest: namely, sperates dodge and armor. Gives very satisfying results. The only thing my fix doesn't do is adjust damage for Strength; consider fixing this by 1) giving bonues to unarmed based on STR, and 2) realizing that the really strong will be wielding more powerful stuff: A Str 6 guy w a baseball bat (club), pow 1 (maybe 2?). A str 12 guy with a telephone pole, pow 8? 3) Angels and guns: Guns work better than fists, full stop. Of course, it's much easier to carry your fists around without attracting attention, which is why it just hasn't been a problem for me yet. Also, note that many of the numinous corpus approach or surpass firearm damage. This seems like a style issue; do what you want. 4) Angels and magic: I like your ideas. Again, loosen up. I let a Cherub use his reasnoance on a bloodstain to get a clue about whose it was; I don't know if it would work that way again, but he got a good check, and it helped the plot. I let someone sing celestial attraction with someone's shirt; I gave them a whopper penalty to both skill and check, but they got a direction on the person. I agree that "improvisational miracles" should be avaialble and fairly easy. Little things make all the difference. I'm remembering the sidebar remenant who turns water into wine, and thinking, "hey, I didn't see where to buy that attunement..." It occurs to me that we might want to fork these issues (and the others you've raised) into seperate threads, depending on how engaged everyone gets. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 97 13:06 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #173 >Can a Celestial commit soul-suicide? Just disband their own forces, >throwing them back to the Symphony? One of my players, a Malakim who lost >himself in the heat of the moment and did something *extremely* >dishonorable, is considering this. I'm leaning towards allowing it. What >does everyone think? I'd say it's at least plausible, but it seems more in character for a Malakim to take on some hopeless battle and get himself toasted that way - -- at least he might make up a little for what he did. Say, invade Hell and try to take out Lucifer.... Also, there's a question of suicide -- it's my understanding that most Christian churches frown on the notion. Whether that reflects a higher policy, is, of course, unknown. And if so, it's also an open question whether it would apply to celestials. Sounds like a question for Moriah.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:17:15 EST From: "PERRY M. LLOYD" Subject: RE: IN> A few sins >Hi all, > > >For those looking for a few things for demons to promote, or for angels >to stop happening, the book of Leviticus is a wonderful source of >inspiration. Leviticus 20 is the best bit. A few examples: > >Death is the punishment for: >Cursing your parents, >Adultery, >Incest, >Homosexuality and lesbianism, >Bestiality, >Wizardry, >Onership of a familiar spirit. > For the record, as the words homosexual and lesbian did not exist at the time the bible was written, it is an impossiblity that these be in the good book. They didn't deal with sexual orientation much, and judging by the numbers of gay clerymen in the early Christian church, I can guess why However, Lev. does say: "Laying with another man" In the Hebrew text, this is described as "ritually unclean", from the Hebrew "toewah", which does not carry with it the connotations as the modern TRANSLATION of the word of God would lead youto believe. So, GM's out there so don't care to go back to the original Hebrew, or even the Greek (which also translated the passage to denote "laying with another man" as being ritually unclean, not inherently evil) keep this in mind. If you have any problems with homosexuality and the bible and jesus and what not, this is a place to discuss the game, not your issues. Feel free to write me, , I'd rather this mailing list not deal with issues which don't necessarily have to do with the game and also happen to carry HUGE political implications (even with "seperation of church and state")... Look into John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homoseuxality" if you want to know more. This mailing list doesn't need a debate over Homosexuality of all things, at least IMHO... Perry M. Lloyd ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #176 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.