From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Oct 15 18:08:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29301 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:08:45 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA17880 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199810152246.RAA17880@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #978 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 Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 978 In this digest: Re: IN> Question on Shedim Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE IN> IN FUDGE v0.1 - Attributes, Skills and Songs Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> Lilith IN> Full House? (was IN> Re: IN- Lilith) Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) IN> Lilith IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates IN> Cherubic resonance Re: IN> IN FUDGE IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? Re: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates Re: IN> Cherubic resonance Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates Re: IN> IN FUDGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:55:18 +0100 From: Rhodri James Subject: Re: IN> Question on Shedim In article <199810130224.WAA10641@wolfe.bbn.com>, Walter Milliken wrote: > Actually, I've been assuming that normals could *receive* Essence, but > not give it. The rules really only require conscious control to give > it, I think. Well, our house rule runs the other way. If you try to push Essence into someone who doesn't have conscious control faster than their "natural" absorption rate, it just splatters off, in the same way that if you don't know how to chug you'll never manage to drink a yard of ale, just wear it. This did matter to me at one point -- my Mercurian *really* wanted his friend the train driver to make a driving roll... - -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:23:02 -0400 From: Neel Krishnaswami Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Kevin Walsh wrote: > >Heaven just doesn't cut it, IMO. Angels lack the malice, selfishness, and >information-deprivation needed for it to work. \begin{rant} Actually, this is the reason why the majority of IN adventures have been so bad; it's extremely hard to run a plausible game based on a hidden-information shtick when the PCs are angels, and that fact does not seem to have sunk in yet. Let's pick some examples off my shelf: o "The Collector" (from the LR): Michael creates a devious plan to nuke one of Yves's tethers, and so Michael must conceal the fact he's responsible. We will leave aside the facts that Michael is a seraph and that you can't lie in angelic: what happens when the angels of Judgement question the angels on the scene? One of them gets a "6" on his detect- truth resonance and the scheme is revealed. o Fall of the Malakim: At a crucial point is asserted that no one will believe the angelic PCs if they claim that something is fishy. Why not? You can't lie in angelic, and there are plenty of Seraphim and Elohim and Mercurians to confirm their story. My players would laugh at the pathetic railroad. o No Dinero (from H&H): Besides the obvious "How can he trick a Seraph?", one Mercurian resonating on Loki (or Thor) could trivially obliterate the entire plot of the adventure. Again, tricking an angel is unreliable enough that you can't plot based on it. Add to this the fact that celestials shouldn't normally regard corporeal death as more than an inconvenience, and the bulk of the tools in the adventure-writer's toolkit are gone. (Most adventures have fairly generic hooks, since the writer doesn't know what sorts of PCs would fit -- but IN has filed off the most commonly used hooks.) I think this could be a good thing, if it encouraged adventures of sorts not normally seen in gaming (say comedies, or genuine moral dilemmas, or day-in-the-life-of stories), but in practice what we seem to be getting is either poor plotting or egregious railroading. \end{rant} - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:11:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE > I also have thought about FUDGEing IN, at a time when I was looking at > all the games I own and thinking about how to FUDGE them (mainly a thought > experiment). Forces were the stumbling block for me, since they form such > a big part of the IN mechanics but don't translate smoothly into FUDGE. You can always import those mechanics from the IN system that are important. You can make Celestial Forces, Ethereal Forces, and Corporeal Forces gifts in Fudge. One benefit of each gift is that you are allowed to raise your attributes to a certain level. Another way to approach it would be to make the three Forces FUDGE attributes... though one would have to figure out how this would interact with the normal attributes. I would propose making celetsials a different Scale of most attributes than huamns. IN has enough granularity as it is, and FUDGE has more. If you want the average Celestial to ahve fair attributes, then the average human must be terrible, which sounds rather sad. It would require thought :) I'd be willing to collaborate on this as well, although I'm not only lazy but also very busy. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:25:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > > > >>>>> "AG" == Anders Gabrielsson writes: > > > > AG> I've been thinking about converting IN to the FUDGE system, but > > AG> since I'm a very lazy person I thought I'd check here to see if > > AG> anyone's already done it. :) I think FUDGE is a pretty good choice > > AG> for a conversion - it's simple, easily customizable, and if you > > AG> use three normal dice to simulate FUDGE-dice, you can still use > > AG> the normal rules for intervention. :) > > > > I think it would be a nice idea. There are a lot of things I don't > > like about IN's mechanics, but I'm uncomfortable with changing them > > since some of them (like Forces and Interventions) tie in so closely > > with the setting. > > I also have thought about FUDGEing IN, at a time when I was looking at > all the games I own and thinking about how to FUDGE them (mainly a thought > experiment). Forces were the stumbling block for me, since they form such > a big part of the IN mechanics but don't translate smoothly into FUDGE. > > > One of the real advantages of using FUDGE-based rules would be that > > the Stat+Skill problem would go away. And as you say, you could still > > keep interventions, if you weren't using real dF. > > You could still use the usual 4dF. Interventions happen in IN once > every 108 rolls (on average). Having them happen on a rolled result of -4 > or +4 in FUDGE would make them occur every ((1/3 ^4) x2) 40 or so rolls. > Make the rule that a Intervention requires a +/- 4 rolled result, and a > Legendary+ or worse than Terrible total, and the odds should work out about > the same. That's a thought... but I'm not really comfy with requiring a certain result, since that means that in some situations you can be sure that a certain kind of intervention cannot occur, and that should never be the case, IMO. > > Also you would get > > combat based on damage levels (what I was saying was nice about > > Paranoia) instead of hitpoints, and you could use FUDGE's concept of > > Scale to handle the difference in resilience between mortals and > > vessels. It could work though I'm sure some things would remain an > > awkward fit. > > Scale would be tricky if you keep the 1-6 levels of Vessel as per IN. > Someone with a Damage Capacity of 9 (Superb Strength & 6 Vessel Scales) > would be almost impossible to hurt, even with a rocket launcher. I don't think I'd keep the 1-6 scale. When it comes to Vessels, I think three levels could be enough, really. But then again, Vessels wouldn't necessarily add to ability to resist damage, but rather to the amount of damage one could take. For example, normal Strength could be used to resist damage, but Strength+Vessel as the measure for actual "hit points". > > Anyway, I haven't seen it done, but I might not know if it had been. > > I'd be willing to collaborate some, though I'm probably at least as > > lazy as you are. > > But I'd recommend that you have a look at the GURPS/IN conversion notes > at the IN website first. Not because I'm advocating using GURPS (I'm not > fond of it), but because you can see how other people have puzzled out the > tricky to convert things like Forces and Essence. I have an idea on how to do Forces, which would keep things pretty close to IN as it is. Divide Abilities in three groups, just like in IN - you could even keep the same ones if you want. If you have one Force in a group, you have an average ability of Mediocre (assuming the normal scale is used) in those abilities, and then raise the average by one level for each extra Force. Two Forces gives an average level of Fair, which is normal for a human; three gives Good; four Great; five Superb - which is pretty close to the upper human limit of ten in IN; and six gives Legendary - in essence the 11-12 superhuman level in IN. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:31:47 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Robert Knop wrote: > You can make Celestial Forces, Ethereal Forces, and Corporeal Forces gifts > in Fudge. One benefit of each gift is that you are allowed to raise your > attributes to a certain level. Hmmm... I don't like that kind of 'perscriptive' gift, with the idea that you have to spend more points (or whathaveyou) over and above the 'cost' of a feature in order to have said feature. Like having to buy Unusual Background in a GURPS game to justify buying abilities that are already expensive enough. > Another way to approach it would be to make the three Forces FUDGE > attributes... though one would have to figure out how this would interact > with the normal attributes. That was the idea I was thinking about, but it's... unwieldy. Another option could be to state that a celestial's Forces level would be the average of the two appropriate attibutes - so an Angel with Mediocre(-1) Agility but Superb(+3) Strength would have Good (+1) Corporeal Forces. Just a thought. > I would propose making celetsials a different Scale of most attributes > than huamns. IN has enough granularity as it is, and FUDGE has more. If > you want the average Celestial to ahve fair attributes, then the average > human must be terrible, which sounds rather sad. Well, a FUDGE version of IN would most likely have a different feel than regular IN. I'd be in favour of keeping humans/mortals at Fair on their Stats, and giving Celestials (or other wacky characters) more levels and gifts to play with. Perhaps base it off their Total Forces, or subdivide the bonuses available according to how all three Force types are arranged. That would make Forces important at character generation, but less so once play had started. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Hallucinations are bad enough. But after a while you learn to cope with things like seeing your dead grandmother crawling up your leg with a knife in her teeth. Most acid fanciers can handle this sort of thing. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:56:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> IN FUDGE v0.1 - Attributes, Skills and Songs Okay, I jotted down some rough guidelines for creating IN characters in (some kind of) FUDGE, and tried them out, since I think this is a better way of finding problems than just thinking about it. :) Here's what I came up with. Characters have six attributes, arranged just like in IN - two corporeal (strength and agility) and so on. In addition, each realm has a Force rating, which is a special kind of attribute. I tried using the following scale for Forces: Number of Forces Rating 1 Mediocre 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Great 5 Superb 6 Legendary The related attributes will have the same level as the corresponding force level, unless levels are shifted between the two. Attribute levels may only be raised or lowered by moving levels between the two related attributes. (This is an attempt to mirror the IN system pretty closely.) IN attribute levels correspond to FUDGE levels according to the following scale in this scheme: IN FUDGE 1-2 Mediocre 3-4 Fair 5-6 Good 7-8 Great 9-10 Superb 11-12 Legendary This means that if you want to keep the probabilities of success for an attribute roll roughly equal to what they are in IN, you'd have to require a higher level of success than Fair on a normal roll. Great seems like a reasonable level. (Someone who feels up to it can do the actual math.:) The skills are the same as in IN, though some may work a bit differently. A skill defaults to the relevant attribute minus two levels. (For example, a character with Great Perception has a default level of Fair for Detect Lies.) Buying a skill at level one raises it to the level of the attribute, and each level after that raises the level one step. Each skill level should cost more than they do in normal IN relative to the number of points given. Songs have no default (duh!). Buying a Song at level one gives it a level equal to the character's Force rating in the corresponding realm minus one, and each level after that raises the rating by one level. Example: Genericel has three Corporeal Forces, giving him a Good rating. If he buys the Corporeal Song of Healing at level one, he'll be rated Fair. I think one level of a Song/skill in FI (FUDGE IN) will correspond roughly to two levels in IN. A TN of seven in IN should correspond to requiring a Great success in FI if we look at the attribute scale. Genericel currently has one or two points in the Song in IN, giving him a TN of four or five. Raising his FI level by one should give him a Great rating, but it doesn't, so we'll skip the minus one level. :P Buying one level of a Song gives the Song at the same level as the character's rating in the appropriate Forces. I feel I'm starting to fall asleep here, so I'll stop now. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:09:29 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > > One of the real advantages of using FUDGE-based rules would be that > > the Stat+Skill problem would go away. And as you say, you could > > still keep interventions, if you weren't using real dF. > > You could still use the usual 4dF. Interventions happen in IN > once every 108 rolls (on average). Having them happen on a rolled > result of -4 or +4 in FUDGE would make them occur every ((1/3 ^4) x2) > 40 or so rolls. > Make the rule that a Intervention requires a +/- 4 rolled result, and > a Legendary+ or worse than Terrible total, and the odds should work > out about the same. Well yes, but IMHO the whole point of Interventions is that they occur when you roll a 666 or a 111 - special numbers. Making them just another critical hit or fail is losing a lot of the magic. Sam - -- INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/inwo/ More of my stuff: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ Not my employer's opinion, no snappy quote ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:55:19 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> Lilith In message , Jasper Reijer Floor writes >On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > >> That sense is perhaps enough for a dark side of the Word >> Freedom. But they are very appropriate to the myth of >> Lilith, who is the enemy of human children. > >That may be a myth about her, but I don't think it's canon. Anyway, I >disagree that Lilith is getting too nice. I thought she was getting less >nice. How so? >While she does support every aspect of freedom, not just anarchy, >and isn't cruel as written, she is selfish. As IN is written, it is selflessness and selfishness that determine how good or evil you are. > She might not choke children, >but she won't save a drowning child either. Why not? That's a big hook there... > She accepts power from >lucifer, cause she needs it to be as independent as possible, but I'm sure >she doesn't like this need. > Unless, way back, they struck some kind of deal; 'Ah, there you are Lilith. Why do you look so downcast my sweet?' ' you were right Lucifer. Right all along. Yet... It is not pleasant to turn your back on Paradise.' 'Hush, my child, you did not do so! When you awoke to His machinations you were -cast out-. Do you think that He would let you remain, being not perfect in His image? Besides, I have a feeling that you will see the world now with a fresh perspective. I very much envy you.' Lilith looks radiantly into Lucifer's face. 'Oh, you are a sweet Prince, yet your words give small comfort. _You_ may still see the glory of Heaven, whereas _I_ am alone now! His other creations are frightfull and savage, and there is no place for me amongst them. What is to become of me?' Lucifer thought for a time; 'Lilith, I shall task you with something. Meet occasionally with me and inform me of what you have learned and experienced. Tell me in all regards what it is _truly_ like to walk without Him, and I will take care of your needs.' "No, my Prince" '"No", Lilith?' "For such favour from the Prince of the Morningstar, I will take care of _his_" - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:57:37 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Full House? (was IN> Re: IN- Lilith) > And still more of my friends have this weird habit of >getting >nude at parties or at our old weekly poker games. A cruel tactic of The Game to crack your poker-face? X-(8-) - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:29:20 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Perry Lloyd wrote: > Mark off another Vessel, citizen. >:) > That reminds me, anyone doing In Nomine: Paranoia? Yep. Ran it, went reasonably well, intend to put background material on my web site as soon as I get round to HTMLing it. In the mean time, I can email the Word 97 files to anyone who is interested. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:02:04 -0400 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: IN> Lilith Given the current debate about Lilith, I thought that I'd post something that one of my professors said, specifically about Lilith. Apparently, and this predates the current set of Lilith myths, she's a Mesopotamian princess named "Lilitu" (the Israelis called her Lilith, and then in the Middle Ages the current myths arrived about Adam's wife). She was the female night spirit, a "God-like demon," who was one step down from the Gods. What's most interesting is who she goes after: men, asleep, who she makes indecent suggestions to or seduces. (If she get impregnated then she gives birth to a spirit, who are mean and nasty.) There's a male counterpart to Lilitu, too, named Lilu (Lilh or Lith, I suppose, in modern English). He does basically the same things as Lilitu. (In fact, prayers address them as the same, Lili.) What makes this interesting, however, is what happens if you apply "Demon Princess of Freedom" to Lilitu's actions; it makes her out to be much mushy. Think about - freedom is the power to seduce anyone, and say dirty words? I guess that the dark side to Freedom.... Matt. [Angel of Weird Ideas, servant of Eli, kind of kicking it for now.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) From: David Subject: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates I have a few Questions on the Kyriotate resonance when run through certain angels. Jean -- what is the effect of possessing an item... and it says "corporeal items." Does this mean anything that isn't living, or only man made, technological artifacts? Michael and David -- How do these Kyriotates manifest their vessels? Michael's says his cannot be abandoned, but can presumably be manifested for the first time at some point, while David's says nothing of the sort. For David's attunment, is it A)the Stone Vessel be created anywhere within sight of a possessed host for the cost of 1 Essence ("Changing Vessel cost"), which would be extremely powerful or B) is there a single stone vessel which the Kyriotate can enter and leave, which is nowhere implied but is somewhat more balanced. Balseraphs of Kronos -- Who choose the Kyriotate resonance... they can still have vessels, correct (mimicks the resonance and dissonance but not other properties of the Choir)? Or not? And why? Jordi -- How is Dissonance handled for Insect Swarms? If one insect dies, is there any dissonance? And what does one make of an insect swarm with Strength 10 (strong kyriotate)? How would you handle attacks from, say, a strength 10 cloud of ants or flies? Thank you. David p.s. Who is Khalid? I hear a lot about him but he's not in the main book... I remember some stuff about him from when In Nomine was all on the Web (Faith, hates Eli)... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:07:25 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Cherubic resonance If a cherub checks up on their attunement and fails the roll, is there a delay before the cherub may try again (maybe connected with the CD in minutes, for example) or may they try straight away? Likewise, assuming that they pass a roll but get a low check digit, can they keep trying in the hopes of achieving a higher one until they get a failure? - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:33:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Howdy! On 14 Oct 1998, Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > I think it would be a nice idea. There are a lot of things I don't > like about IN's mechanics, but I'm uncomfortable with changing them > since some of them (like Forces and Interventions) tie in so closely > with the setting. We ran In Nomine up here using FUDGE once or twice. It works nicely, bu the core In Nomine system is so simple, we just went right back to usinf the original mechanics . Sure, there are problems, but they are easy to fix. Later! Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:05:51 -0400 (EDT) From: David Subject: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? The Lilim of Kronos attunement does what? The text says the attunement adds the Lilim's Celestial Forces to any attempt to inflict a charmed person with their infernal geas. Charmed person implies that the need of the person has already been met, but after the need has been met the only rolls allowed are those of the victim. Does this ability a) actually add to the Lilim's Perception (fine, easiest fix, but not what the text says) or b)subtract from the victim's Will (more in keeping with the spirit of the text, but very powerful)? thanks david ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:33:26 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Lilim of Kronos Attunement? At 2:05 PM -0400 10/15/98, David wrote: >The Lilim of Kronos attunement does what? Pick up the Infernal Player's Guide, which clarifies this little puppy. >The text says the attunement adds the Lilim's Celestial Forces to any attempt >to inflict a charmed person with their infernal geas. If, after the Lilim has fulfilled the Need and gotten the hook (the state of a Geas before the Will roll but after the Need is fulfilled, see the "Fall of the Malakim" page from http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine), she manages to get a positive reaction roll from the person, via skills or whatever, then the victim subtracts her Celestial Forces from his Will (along with the level of the Geas!) when attempting to resist. Okay, there's a lot of those "add to attempt to inflict" in the Lilim attunements -- this is because they used to have a 2-part resonance, like Impudites. One was the Impudite Charm ability, the other was the Inflict Geas ability. As you can see, it got changed.... However, some of the attunements reflect the older version (as does Michael's Kyriotate one reflect old Kyrio mechanics -- check the errata for it!). When it says "add to attempt", subtract that number from the victim's Will. (For Vapulan Lilim, IIRC, they get it for Perception *and* subtract it from Will. Eee!) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:24:10 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates At 12:39 PM -0400 10/15/98, David wrote: >I have a few Questions on the Kyriotate resonance when run through certain angels. > >Jean -- what is the effect of possessing an item... and it says "corporeal >items." Does this mean anything that isn't living, or only man made, >technological artifacts? We say "any non-living, made thing." IOW, they can't possess a live tree, and probably not a fallen one -- but they could possess one that someone had carved into a bench. (We don't make a distinction between human made or celestial made, etc., for Kyriotates. For Remote Control, IIRC, we do.) >Michael and David -- How do these Kyriotates manifest their vessels? Michael's >says his cannot be abandoned, You can still go celestial from it -- you just can't *leave* it. The Forces invested in it (5, for a human vessel, less for animal ones at the GM's option) are still not available to posses things. I would assume that David's do roughly the same thing, except when the vessel is demanifest, IIRC, the Forces *are* freed up. >Balseraphs of Kronos -- Who choose the Kyriotate resonance... they can still >have vessels, correct (mimicks the resonance and dissonance but not other >properties of the Choir)? Or not? And why? There's a FAQ question on this... IIRC, If they do get a vessel, they can't use both it and their Kyrio resonance at the same time -- they must go celestial (demanifest the vessel) first. (Jordi-question -- I'm totally blanking on the correct answer, and I think there's a FAQ answer at least, or one in the APG.) >p.s. Who is Khalid? I hear a lot about him but he's not in the main book... I >remember some stuff about him from when In Nomine was all on the Web (Faith, >hates Eli)... He's in Final Trumpet, and he's the AA of Faith. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:26:06 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cherubic resonance At 4:07 PM +0100 10/15/98, Julian Breen wrote: >If a cherub checks up on their attunement and fails the roll, is there a >delay before the cherub may try again (maybe connected with the CD in >minutes, for example) or may they try straight away? Resonance failure rules, p. 57 of the main book. (I checked this after I wrote it. I got it right from memory. Eep.) >Likewise, assuming that they pass a roll but get a low check digit, can >they keep trying in the hopes of achieving a higher one until they get a >failure? Yes. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:03:00 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > You could still use the usual 4dF. Interventions happen in IN once > > every 108 rolls (on average). Having them happen on a rolled result of -4 > > or +4 in FUDGE would make them occur every ((1/3 ^4) x2) 40 or so rolls. > > Make the rule that a Intervention requires a +/- 4 rolled result, and a > > Legendary+ or worse than Terrible total, and the odds should work out about > > the same. > > That's a thought... but I'm not really comfy with requiring a certain > result, since that means that in some situations you can be sure that a > certain kind of intervention cannot occur, and that should never be the > case, IMO. Yeah, that's one definite problem with the idea. Hmmm. Maybe on a rolled result of +/-4, you could roll an extra dF. If that brings the total to +/-5, an Intervention occurs. that brings the odds to about 1 in 120. > > Scale would be tricky if you keep the 1-6 levels of Vessel as per IN. > > Someone with a Damage Capacity of 9 (Superb Strength & 6 Vessel Scales) > > would be almost impossible to hurt, even with a rocket launcher. > > But then again, Vessels wouldn't necessarily add to ability to resist > damage, but rather to the amount of damage one could take. For example, > normal Strength could be used to resist damage, but Strength+Vessel as the > measure for actual "hit points". One thought of mine was to have each Vessel level add an extra wound box to the damage track - Vessel/1 is an extra Scratch, Vessel/2 a Scratch and a Hurt level etc. Vessel 5 & 6 are Scale, so Vessel/6 is Scale 2 with 4 extra wound boxes, evenly distributed. Still pretty butch, but definitely better (lacking in elegance though). > Divide Abilities in three groups, just like in IN - you could even keep > the same ones if you want. If you have one Force in a group, you have an > average ability of Mediocre (assuming the normal scale is used) in those > abilities, and then raise the average by one level for each extra Force. > Two Forces gives an average level of Fair, which is normal for a human; > three gives Good; four Great; five Superb - which is pretty close to the > upper human limit of ten in IN; and six gives Legendary - in essence the > 11-12 superhuman level in IN. That's pretty cool. It has the same drawback that IN has, in that an 'average' person will in fact be _below_ average in two of their abilities (in IN, they're also above average in four of their abilities). Other than that, it gives the average Celestial (3 Forces of each type) Goods across the board, which is about right for IN. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Sympathy? Not for me. No mercy for a criminal freak in Las Vegas. This place is like the Army: the shark ethic prevails - eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:08:39 -0700 From: Stephen Gingell Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Don't know the first thing about fudge, but for those who are interested your chances of making your target number on the D666 are as follows 2 2% 3 8% 4 16% 5 27% 6 41% 7 58% 8 72% 9 83% 10 91% 11 97% 12 100% More or less, I just cut off decimal points rather than bothering to round, so these may be off by a percentage point or two either direction... So you want an 8 or 9 before you're reliable... - -Stephen Gingell ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:04:56 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >Balseraphs of Kronos -- Who choose the Kyriotate resonance... they can still > >have vessels, correct (mimicks the resonance and dissonance but not other > >properties of the Choir)? Or not? And why? > > There's a FAQ question on this... IIRC, If they do get a vessel, they can't > use both it and their Kyrio resonance at the same time -- they must > go celestial (demanifest the vessel) first. I think it was the other way around. The Kyriotate Resonance says "They MUST borrow the bodies of other living beings to make their mark on reality." (Emphasis mine) So if you, as a Balseraph, convince reality that you are actually a Kyriotate enough to take the Resonance, you have to take on the all the aspects that let the Resonance work. Just like when another Bal of Kronos decides to have any of the other resonances; they can't 'ignore' it... it's a part of them now. > (Jordi-question -- I'm totally blanking on the correct answer, and I > think there's a FAQ answer at least, or one in the APG.) APG, p.58: "Treat a swarm as one host for generating dissonance from damage (the swarm can be healed as a "unit", even though damage may have meant some members were killed). To simulate this, it might mean that the rest of the members are a little stronger and tougher each; some 'dead' insects recover; some previously older or damaged insects are repaired up to youthful health; etc. In extreme cases, the GM can just way their hand and say, "Okay, more bugs appear." Obviously, if the entire swarm has been wiped out, this counts as a dead host! - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:18:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > That's a thought... but I'm not really comfy with requiring a certain > > result, since that means that in some situations you can be sure that a > > certain kind of intervention cannot occur, and that should never be the > > case, IMO. > > Yeah, that's one definite problem with the idea. Hmmm. Maybe on a rolled > result of +/-4, you could roll an extra dF. If that brings the total to +/-5, an > Intervention occurs. that brings the odds to about 1 in 120. That's good, if you're planning to use normal dF. I've been thinking that if you really want to preserve as much of the IN system as possible, you could use four normal dice, with one a different colour. Use three to determine success/failure and intervention, and the fourth as the check digit - it's handy for Angelic attunements, at least. I don't know how to do a good port of those otherwise, apart from using the level of success on a simplified table. Maybe that's better, actually. :) > > But then again, Vessels wouldn't necessarily add to ability to resist > > damage, but rather to the amount of damage one could take. For example, > > normal Strength could be used to resist damage, but Strength+Vessel as the > > measure for actual "hit points". > > One thought of mine was to have each Vessel level add an extra wound box to > the damage track - Vessel/1 is an extra Scratch, Vessel/2 a Scratch and a Hurt > level etc. Vessel 5 & 6 are Scale, so Vessel/6 is Scale 2 with 4 extra wound > boxes, evenly distributed. Still pretty butch, but definitely better (lacking in > elegance though). I haven't given much thought to the combat system... I usually don't sweat that too much. :) > > Divide Abilities in three groups, just like in IN - you could even keep > > the same ones if you want. If you have one Force in a group, you have an > > average ability of Mediocre (assuming the normal scale is used) in those > > abilities, and then raise the average by one level for each extra Force. > > Two Forces gives an average level of Fair, which is normal for a human; > > three gives Good; four Great; five Superb - which is pretty close to the > > upper human limit of ten in IN; and six gives Legendary - in essence the > > 11-12 superhuman level in IN. > > That's pretty cool. It has the same drawback that IN has, in that an > 'average' person will in fact be _below_ average in two of their abilities (in > IN, they're also above average in four of their abilities). Other than that, it > gives the average Celestial (3 Forces of each type) Goods across the board, which > is about right for IN. I prioritize making the game work for Celestials, just like IN does. :) If you want to use normal humans as the baseline, give them Fair in all attributes, and then add one or two levels of Scale for Celestials, depending on how tough you want them. This will make Forces harder to simulate, but I'm not sure that's really such a big loss. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 98 18:19 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Questions on specific Kyriotates >>Jean -- what is the effect of possessing an item... and it says "corporeal >>items." Does this mean anything that isn't living, or only man made, >>technological artifacts? > >We say "any non-living, made thing." IOW, they can't possess a live >tree, and probably not a fallen one -- but they could possess one that >someone had carved into a bench. (We don't make a distinction between >human made or celestial made, etc., for Kyriotates. For Remote Control, >IIRC, we do.) I thought the APG covered this question. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1998 17:44:49 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE >>>>> "PO" == Patrick O'Duffy writes: PO> Jason F. McBrayer wrote: >> Also you would get combat based on damage levels (what I was saying >> was nice about Paranoia) instead of hitpoints, and you could use >> FUDGE's concept of Scale to handle the difference in resilience >> between mortals and vessels. It could work though I'm sure some >> things would remain an awkward fit. PO> Scale would be tricky if you keep the 1-6 levels of Vessel as PO> per IN. Someone with a Damage Capacity of 9 (Superb Strength & 6 PO> Vessel Scales) would be almost impossible to hurt, even with a PO> rocket launcher. Having taken a longer look at FUDGE, I have changed my mind about using Scale to handle vessel levels. Here's how I think corporeal combat should work (first draft): Assume Forces and Attributes work as in Anders Gabrielsson's IN FUDGE 0.1. Your Damage Capacity is the sum of your Strength and Vessel Level (or Toughness for mortals). Vessel level can be from 0 to +3; humans can take Toughness from -1 to +1. There are 6 (actually 7) Damage levels: Fine (0) Just a Scratch (1) Wounded (2) Badly Wounded (3) Incapacitated (4) Mostly Dead (5) Dead (6) (Adjust as desired. For example, stick "Stunned" between "Just a Scratch" and "Wounded", and get rid of "Mostly Dead". Adjust effects to match.) Use the FUDGE rules for either Simultaneous Combat Turns or Alternating Combat Turns. A hit normally does the attacker's relative degree of success plus the weapon's power rating (-3 to +3) and/or the attacker's strength (-3 to +3). When someone is hit, they make a Damage Capacity roll. A Poor or worse result increases the level of damage by 1; a Great or better result decreases the level of damage by 1. It sounds complicated, I know, and I haven't really tried it...I'm just kind of thinking out loud....let's try some examples. Genericel has 3 Corporeal Forces (Good Strength, Good Agility) and a Good Vessel (+1). He is fighting a Mummy with 2 Corporeal forces (Fair Strength, Fair Agility) and Toughness. Both are using improvised clubs (Mediocre weapons). On a given round, using Simultaneous Combat Turns, both roll 0. Genericel hits the Mummy with a relative degree of 1, for a base damage of 3 (Good Strength +3, Mediocre weapon -1, relative degree of success +1). The Mummy rolls a 0 on its Damage Capacity roll for a Fair result. The Mummy is Wounded. Joe Bloggs, Soldier of God, has 2 Corporeal forces (Fair Strength, Fair Agility, Fair Pistol skill, Fair Dodge skill), and is in a firefight with a Calabite of Baal (4 Corporeal forces, Great Strength, Great Agility, Great Pistol skill, Great Dodge skill, Good Vessel). Both are using pistols, a Good weapon. Alternating Combat Turns, the Calabite has initiative. It rolls a 0 on its Pistol Skill for a Great result; Joe rolls a 0 on his Dodge skill for a Fair result. The Calabite's relative success is 2, plus using a Good weapon, for a base damage of 3. Joe rolls a 0 on his Damage Capacity for a Fair result. Joe is Badly Wounded. Joe is now at -2 to hit the Calabite. To hit at all, Joe needs to get at least a +0 _and_ win the opposed action (vs the Calabite's Dodge). He rolls a +4 on his Pistol skill (Great result), the Calabite rolls a 0 on his Dodge skill (Great result). Joe missed (by a little). Tough. Joe can't hit, no matter how high he rolls, unless the Calabite does poorly on its Dodge roll. If the Calabite had rolled a -2 on its Dodge skill (Fair), Joe's relative success would have been 2, base damage 3. The Calabite's Damage Capacity is Superb (Great Strength, Good Vessel). It rolls a 0, for a Superb result, reducing the damage done by 1, and it is Wounded. If the Calabite had _really_ whiffed his Dodge roll (-4, for a Poor result), Joe's relative success would have been 4, for a base damage of 5. The Calabite rolls a 0 on its Damage Capacity, for a Superb result, reducing the damage done by 1. The Calabite is Incapacitated. Note that this is the _extreme_ case of Joe being unusually lucky (about a 1% chance) and the Calabite of Baal being extremely unlucky (another 1% chance). Given that any of the dice options in FUDGE give a stronger bell curve than d666, and that your rolled result depends partly on your skill or attribute, Joe is pretty badly outmatched, which is as it should be. On the other hand, this is achieved without the Calabite being able to take more damage than an armored personnel carrier. I'm sure this needs some fixing up...one problem I foresee is strength-based weapons doing far more damage than ranged weapons unless they are assigned very low power ratings. I'm not sure how it plays out for defense monsters, either... Comments? - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #978 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.