From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Oct 20 13:59:27 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 NAA05437 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:59:26 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA28470 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:32:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:32:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199810201832.NAA28470@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 #985 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 Tuesday, October 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 985 In this digest: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Constructive Criticism IN> Lucifer and Michael Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Constructive Criticism IN> The Overmind Re: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine Re: IN> Song of Possession Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Constructive Criticism IN> Playtesting (Re: Constructive Criticism) Re: IN> Balseraph (was Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial) Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Re: IN> A symbol question Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) IN> Jews in In Nomine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:49:05 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism (huge snip of quality of product) Bollocks? It's nice to see that IN is received internationally. > >I'm the one who said it was poorly researched, and I said so because it is. >_The Final Trumpet_ was not available for playtest, at least not since I >joined the list, so I didn't have that option. I have not helped playtest >the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my >friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of >the system. A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN is >_because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. I agree with JMN's statement concerning playtesting the Revelation cycle books. Many playtesters, I think, would have said, "Do we really need some of this" or would have complained on the accuracy of some of the information presented. I playtest, myself (and should have noticed the gaff about possessee dying), and think that the playtested books have so far been the best. Conclusion: SJ Games didn't want us to see what they were doing with Revelation Cycle. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:50:51 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism (huge snip of quality of product) Bollocks? It's nice to see that IN is received internationally. > >I'm the one who said it was poorly researched, and I said so because it is. >_The Final Trumpet_ was not available for playtest, at least not since I >joined the list, so I didn't have that option. I have not helped playtest >the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my >friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of >the system. A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN is >_because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. I agree with JMN's statement concerning playtesting the Revelation cycle books. Many playtesters, I think, would have said, "Do we really need some of this" or would have complained on the accuracy of some of the information presented. I playtest, myself (and should have noticed the gaff about possessee dying), and think that the playtested books have so far been the best. Conclusion: SJ Games didn't want us to see what they were doing with Revelation Cycle. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:06 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism [SurturZ:] >another person claimed.. >> What sells, unfortunately, often has little to do with product >quality. >> Just look at the computer hardware and software marketplace if you >want >> proof.... > >"Quality" is a relative term, IMHO. For me, the ideal In Nomine >adventure requires minimal preparation, and railroads the players so I >don't have to think too much when I'm GMing. Maybe it's time to dust off the old "Three Types of Gamers" stuff again.... Basically, there seems to be a spectrum of player and GM types. One extreme is the "problem solvers", who are generally interested in gaming as an intellectual exercise, and not particularly interested in scenery, or tight plotting. (I tend to fall to this end of the spectrum.) The other end is the "storyteller", where gaming is more like a piece of interactive fiction, with the GM directing a tightly-scripted plot and the players improvising around it, but following it fairly carefully. This seems to be where you land. More or less in the middle, are what is usually known as the "real roleplayers", who are mostly concerned with character interaction in-character, and may not necessarily care if there *is* a plot, as long as the NPCs, other PCs, and scenery are interesting. The two ends of the spectrum rarely work well together, in my experience. The "real roleplayers" will get along fairly well with either end. Adventures tend to cater to one end of the spectrum or the other. So far, most of the major IN adventures have been of the "storyteller" type -- fairly carefully scripted -- though there are some exceptions. > For me, the ideal In Nomine >supplement has a lot of fiction at the expense of gaming material, since >I spend more time reading IN books as works of fiction than actually >running IN as a game. I'm sure most gamers that buy IN aren't like me, >though. One has to hope not -- a game that people only read, and don't really play, eventually dies from lack of audience. (Consider Paranoia.) Most people who want fiction will buy books, not gaming supplements -- and they're much cheaper. Of course, most gaming universes do not make particularly good fiction, and vice versa (though I will admit exceptions exist). - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:12:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Lucifer and Michael If part of Lucifer's power comes from having Balseraphed the Symphony into thinking he's more powerful, as has been proposed on this mailing list, then perhaps it doesn't work on a sufficiently powerful Seraph. This would explain why Michael didn't become Malakim, why Lucifer apparently defeated each of the Princes of Hell but made Baal head of the armies, and why everyone expects the major conflict of Armageddon to be Michael vs. Baal rather than a rematch of Michael vs. Lucifer. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:53:19 -0700 From: "Heath L. Markley" Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts At 09:18 AM 10/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >If SJG is going to continue to publish adventures for IN, one decision >that I think has to be made is that most of them are not going to be >suitable for both angelic and demonic groups. This, I think, is where >some of the problems with the currently available scenarios lies. This >universal applicability hamstrings a lot of ideas and forces the >vagueness that is so prevalent. It also is the source of some of the >ridiculous situations that come up. Take bit of _The Final Trumpet_ >where the PCs are supposed to rescue Max. Up to this point, canon has >emphasized how mysterious and horrible the Lower Hells are, but now the >writers are forced to accept the idea that a group of angels can manage >to get in, get to Kobal's hideout, and leave with battered Malakite in >tow. Huh? From previous descriptions, a _demonic_ party would have an >epic time accomplishing this; for angels, it's right out. I think that they were offering that as a suggestion to the GM. Also in the book is the possibility of receiving the information from Mira Klein (sp?). The angels don't have to go to Hell to get Max. They can take care of the Mira problem to get the information. Also, the mysteriousness and horribleness of the Lower Hell's are always up to the GM. If you want to send your group down there, then feel free to change it however you feel fit. That's the great thing about RPG's...It's up to the GM and the players to make the game. >It also prevents woking in too much detail with NPCs. Any person >important to the storyline is going to have to be someone that both a >Balseraph of Factions and a Malakite of the Sword are going to deal >with. I'm sure that it's possible to do this, but it both limits the >possibilities and dramatically increases the amount of space that needs >to be used to handle the different approaches. If this space isn't >used, the result is going to continue to be the kind of sketchy scenario >outlines we've gotten, rather than something that won't require so much >work that I might as well have started from scratch. > It seems like I might be the only one like this, but I like the sketchy scenarios. They give an idea of what a campaign can be like, but they leave it up to the GM to create everything else that is needed. That is my problem with most published adventures...The GM has to follow this "set in stone" plot that the writers have contrived. Steve Jackson Games allows for more creativity on the GM's part. I'm not saying that SJG is perfect, but I happen to like all the stuff I've read so far. Sincerely, Heath L. Markley Demon of Drinking Fountains Impudite Servitor of Dark Humor P.S.--I'm new to this list, so this has probably already been asked, but....Is SJG ever going to do write-ups for the Superiors that weren't covered in the Revelations Cycle? Just wondering... Heath Landon Markley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:23 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism [J. Michael Neal:] >I agree with her as well, and if that scares you, tough. The unspoken part >of her statement is, "...and if we continue to get product where half the >space is taken up with that's no good, we'll stop buying the product." I >know that's true for me, and I'd rather get IN material that I want than to >spend my money on than something else. That pretty much goes without saying.... Once SJGames started the Revelations Cycle, they were pretty much committed to finishing it. Whether they choose to continue the cycle model, or find a different one for packaging the various components of the game (background, rules, adventures, etc.) is a marketing decision. I know changes are being considered, but what will ultimately happen is up to SJ, and to a fairly large extent, the IN audience *if* they make their opinions known. It might help if people here expressed opinions on what they *wanted* to see -- better yet, would *buy*, since that's what drives these sorts of decisions. It seems fairly clear what a lot of people *don't* want, but that doesn't necessarily tell the IN marketing gurus anything except "keep doing this and it won't sell".... It *is* useful to know what is keeping new players out of the game, though -- to continue for a long time, a game needs to either draw in new players constantly, or be able to put out an endless series of supplements that will sell well to the existing audience. Depending purely on either approach is risky (not to mention ugly, in the case of supplementitis...). Knowing people's product wish lists, and what things from the cycle books that *are* liked and you want more of, might help convince the Powers That Be to do things that will be more useful, and better received. >_The Final Trumpet_ was not available for playtest, at least not since I >joined the list, so I didn't have that option. None of the cycle books have been up for playtest, except among the writers and editors. This hasn't worked well, and Elizabeth is trying to fix things so such books get better playtesting. > I have not helped playtest >the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my >friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of >the system. Most playtesters don't use the playtest materials in actual play -- they simply read through them and poke holes in facts or rules, or spot munchkin-bait and other unbalancing factors. So lack of players shouldn't hold you back from playtesting. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:25:38 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: IN> The Overmind Ripped bleeding from Grant Morrison's JLA is the Overmind that his angel "Hawkman", Zauriel often mentions. Seems Z has two modes. He's got a human face he uses when he's got to talk to people. . . and another face. Membership in something he calls the Overmind, and seems to use it when he's contacting Heaven. The idea of angels not always having human minds intrigued me for a bit, and I started to think-how can we get information from one angel to another painlessly? Well, the Celestial Song of Tongues leapt to mind. Assuming you have angels with six Celestial Forces and Celestial Tongues/6 (and no, I never suggested that membership in the Overmind was _easy_) the only thing you have to look out for is Intervention-otherwise, the message always arrives with no loss of Essence. Since you can't have Infernal Intervention in Heaven, the fact that most of the angels participating in the Overmind are in Heaven takes care of the bulk of that problem. A character on Earth would be taking a risk requesting information, but it still might be worthwhile sometimes. The final version of some of the rules from Liber Canticorum may affect the possibility of doing this on Earth. There's some math here-patterns and graphs to speed up information flow between all the angels and symmetry to make sure that as little Essence gets wasted as possible. To quote many software designers, however, these details are left to the implementers-the angels who make up the Overmind have had many thousands of years more to think about this than I have. :) Of course, this easy availability of information changes the game a bit, as does the fact that if the Overmind is large, an angel in danger could simply request a refill of Essence, and angels throughout Heaven who know him would be able to "refill" him. It's just a thought. steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism > I agree with JMN's statement concerning playtesting the Revelation cycle > books. Many playtesters, I think, would have said, "Do we really need > some of this" or would have complained on the accuracy of some of the > information presented. I playtest, myself (and should have noticed the > gaff about possessee dying), and think that the playtested books have so > far been the best. Conclusion: SJ Games didn't want us to see what > they were doing with Revelation Cycle. And the end product is one which is clearly not tested - and it shows. There is a part of me that is twitching endlessly that wants to take a copy of Brooks' the Mythical Man Month and . (I did so to my manager here at work and software development cycles improved immensely.) My little engineering-wired brain sees these books as a product, just like a car or a toaster or a remote control, and testing is an essential part of the design cycle. There is value, I think, in Non-Disclosure Agreements and a testing cycle, _especially_ in such highly tauted products as the last two Revelations books. Would this mean not testing something that is confidential on a quasi-public webboard, but instead elsewhere? Yes, it would. Would it be a hassle to put together? Sure. But would it be worth it? Certainly. The Revelations Books come off as - in addition to the rest of the rants - half finished beta products. One only has to point such things as the endless terminology snafus in Night Music to say that even a small handful of people who were not the writers or the editor just looking at the manuscript, knowing that the MAN would be on them if they spoke, and pointing out these simple errors could have saved endless hassle. I believe the quality will really be vastly improved in IN books with the Tetherbook and the Songbook _because_ they were read and tested long before they went to print. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:26 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism > When I >eagerly cast around for players, I tended to get a response along the lines of, >"If you get some others to join, I will, too." This tends to last until they >catch a look at the core book and realize what a mess the rules are. A major re-org of the core rules is high on Elizabeth's wish-list, I know. Unfortunately, a 2nd edition of the main book is out of the question until the first printing is gone. Something may happen, though.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:34 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine >> I gather from the SJG web pages that, at the moment, GURPS IN is >> a serious consideration, but still very remote. Maybe not *that* remote.... >> While it is >> thus conveniently far off, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let >> the GURPS In Nomine book gather together *ALL* the various pieces >> of mechanics, e.g. for Saints & Sorcerors. > > This is a good suggestion, and I think it will be >followed. To the extent practical, it's a good idea. However, there will be problems fitting everything in the core book, *plus* the rules material in the supplements, into a *smaller* book than the original IN core book. GURPS IN is listed at 160-192 pages, the IN core rules are 208. And there's not much except the relatively small amount of game mechanics that can be cut. > The reason this will be possible is a lot of >the mechanics of GURPS are included in the basic book and >the Compendia. Since the core IN mechanics are only about 20 pages, this doesn't help much. The conversion and special situations rules will probably burn most or all of that. > I especially hope Sorcerers will be less >of a kludge. I don't know if there would be room for them -- they take up multiple pages in The Marches. If they could be converted as a sidebar item, then they might be fixed. (I've been thinking about it a little, I'll admit....) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:41 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Song of Possession >I really am not requesting a 2-book supplement for the LC, but it irks me >at times when rules clarifications that have already been made don't get >included in a supplement that is "supposed" to include these clarifications. That particular clarification got made when you asked the question, and it was, at that point, pretty hard to do anything to the book. Basically, the contents of a book have to be "frozen" a few months before release, so that all the final production/printing/distribution stages work properly. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the publishing process works. >I realize we live in a real world and that IN is an evolving system. But, >this is going to sound severely wrong, I reserve a little bit of right to >complain about it, like many do on this list. Although, most tend >contribute a little something in addition to the complaint. Feel free to complain -- things that are broken need to be fixed. But the realities of the playtesting and publishing process mean that some fixes don't happen in time, and they can't reprint all those copies in the warehouse, either.... Thus, we get errata. >*maybe I'll even join the playtesters, and truly contribute something. Please do. The more people who look at things, and make useful comments, the better the products are. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:46 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts >P.S.--I'm new to this list, so this has probably already been asked, >but....Is SJG ever going to do write-ups for the Superiors that weren't >covered in the Revelations Cycle? Just wondering... There is every intention of finishing them, I think. But I can't say how soon, or in what format. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 12:50 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Constructive Criticism > Conclusion: SJ Games didn't want us to see what >they were doing with Revelation Cycle. Yes, the plot line of the Revelations Cycle was intentionally kept secret -- even the titles of the last two books were secret until shortly before FotM was due out. Public playtest would have "blown" the storyline, and that was deemed to be a Bad Thing. Unfortunately, the alternate playtesting strategy didn't work well. Hopefully, that mistake won't be repeated.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 17:55:38 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism At 12:06 20/10/98 EDT, you wrote: > >Basically, there seems to be a spectrum of player and GM types. One >extreme is the "problem solvers", who are generally interested in gaming >as an intellectual exercise, and not particularly interested in scenery, >or tight plotting. (I tend to fall to this end of the spectrum.) > Shoot me down in showers of flames but I don't think this type of plot really works for In Nomine. At least not with angelic PCs unless the GM is prepared to use a _lot_ of twisted plotting, because there are simply too many ways for them to _easily_ acquire information; up to and including asking nicely at the helpdesk at Yves' library. That's not to say that there isn't scope for practical problem solving once it has become apparent what the plot is, but the standard investigative clue-piecing scenario is something that you simply have to write off here. I think. It certainly works very very differently to something like CoC. jo - -- Jo's (desperately out of date) homepage --> http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/index.html Jo's (bland, plagiarised and devoid of ideas) IN page --> http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN.html - -- ** Some of the above is indubitably true ** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 13:08 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism >>Basically, there seems to be a spectrum of player and GM types. One >>extreme is the "problem solvers", who are generally interested in gaming >>as an intellectual exercise, and not particularly interested in scenery, >>or tight plotting. (I tend to fall to this end of the spectrum.) > >Shoot me down in showers of flames but I don't think this type of plot >really works for In Nomine. At least not with angelic PCs unless the GM is >prepared to use a _lot_ of twisted plotting, because there are simply too >many ways for them to _easily_ acquire information; up to and including >asking nicely at the helpdesk at Yves' library. I use problem-solving in more than the sense of "uncovering the mystery". There are a wide variety of plot elements that demand problem-solving, that aren't "find out what's really going on" sorts of things. I agree, simple mystery plots don't necessarily work (though I actually milked one for quite a few sessions -- fortunately no Seraph in the group, or easily accessible). Of course, even if you know the answer, you may have a hard time doing something *useful* about it, especially if the plot involves humans heavily. That's where I tend to concentrate my plots. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:15:34 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Playtesting (Re: Constructive Criticism) At 7:02 AM -0500 10/20/98, Eeyore wrote: >I have not helped playtest >the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my >friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of >the system. As a note -- playtesting does *not* require that the playtesters actually run a game using the materials. That's *gravy*. What playtesting entails is reading it, thinking about how you'd break it as a player, and what you'd want to know as a GM that isn't clear. Or if you hate the mechanics as both player and GM. If you actually *can* playtest in play, that's great. But it's not required. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:08:18 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Balseraph (was Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial) At 9:01 PM -0500 10/19/98, Vz wrote: >So what happens if a Balseraph's resonance changes the Symphony to such an >extent that what the Balseraph has claimed is true? I mean is there a >backlash for a Balseraph telling the truth, whether he made it so or not? Nope. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:18:16 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine At 9:10 AM -0500 10/20/98, Earl Wajenberg wrote: >I gather from the SJG web pages that, at the moment, GURPS IN is >a serious consideration, but still very remote. While it is >thus conveniently far off, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let >the GURPS In Nomine book gather together *ALL* the various pieces >of mechanics, e.g. for Saints & Sorcerors. As someone who will be involved with GURPS IN when it gets worked on... Keep in mind that the upper limit of pages is listed as around 196 pages, IIRC. Keep in mind that the current *main book* is 208 pages. I'm sure that the authors will try to include as much as they can, but in the end, converting *all* the rules mechanics to date would require, well, a lot of space. Some things may get left out. Other things will not be. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:34:39 -0700 From: Michael Daisey Subject: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) david_streeter@hotmail.com commented on some commenst of mine, so most of this is either he or me. I wrote: >This is a serious problem. If the _mailing list_ of diehard fans are >complaining about a systematic failure of material to be playable, >the average Joe Gamer is going to be far more apathetic and/or upset >when >the supplements just don't cut it. He wrote: I've been a member of a few gaming mailing lists, and by and large I've found that the strongest fans of a product are also likely to be its strongest critics. Why? Because only a fan would bother pushing the system to its limits. Only a fan would WANT the system to be able to model any situation they could dream up. Basic combat is hardly "any situation". The very fact that tere are numerous "fixes" for the amount of damage a vessel can take and other fundamental mechanics indicates a serious problem. I also said: >Further comments? Please, do. But I hope we don't have a round of that >"don't be negative, it's our game, make it better" BS. All we ever do on >this list is kludge together fixes. Were the material better assembled, >this would not be necessary. To which he responded: Crap. All game systems need to compromise between simplicity and realism. IN makes the simplicity more important than the realism. This list does a lot more than fix up mechanics (join inwo-list if you want that! :-) It offers possibilities for fleshing out the IN universe, provides clarifications for newbies, offers an outlet for fan fiction (something I'd prefer to see disappear, but hey, I'm certain that other list denizens enjoy reading them) Well, the knock at the list was uncalled for: a lot of great stuff is written here. In point of fact, the best ideas in IN come from this list...which indicates again my dissatisfaction with the game line. The Redneck Gaijin's IN campaign, the speculations on God's true place in the universe...the list is consistently less munchkin-ish and more oriented to ideas/philosophical debate than the IN line is. I had always expected IN to be a grown-up version of Planescape-- taking the AD+D game of philospohical and moral discussion to a more adult level by writers that have _real religious history_ to work with. Instead, SJG seems to piss away all the possibillities of using historical models and concentrates on comic book cutouts. Look at what Atlas Games did with Jewish Kabbalism--real history used to heighten and take what could be "another bunch of hedge wizards" in a whole new direction. What do we know about Jews in IN? Squat. They have a patron AA. What do we know about Jesus in IN? Less than squat--even though he's the CENTER of the Christian mythos that this originally French Roman Catholic game was concerned with! What about Muslim faiths?...oh, that's right. Khalid. I'm not even going to _touch_ this one, as everybody has had a turn talking about the research and lack of insight present in the current, bomb-wielding killer version of the Muslim faith. Finally, a note from J. Michael Neal: I have not helped playtest the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of the system. A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN is _because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. I understand. No one wants this game in my area without extensive modification/expansion/rebuilding. So, somebody explain: how can a game about angels and demons be out for over a year and a half and we do not have a supplement on Religion? I mean, isn't that just silly? We have a book of artifacts and a book of songs...look, I don't need any more doodads and +3 swords of wounding, thank you. I'd like some of the real research and intelligent writing I've seen in some of the GURPS worldbooks. So...end of my rant. But I do want an answer on the religion issue. ;) - -- Michael Daisey - ---- "Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:48:39 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> A symbol question In a message dated 10/20/98 1:50:34 AM, veazey@ebicom.net writes: >It's a derivation of the cross, or more to the point, two crossed connected >along the vertical. If anyone has a clue as to what it is, where it's >from, it's meaning, it's mythology, or whatever it may be, please e-mail >me >personally or post to the list. I doubt anyone would mind a little more >happy, fun, religious trivia knowledge in their lives. > It sounds/looks like the Patriarchal cross (AKA Croix du Lorraine), which has been in use in the Eastern Orthodox symbology for a very long time. It represents the standard cross with the "INRI" placard above it. ("And above his head they hung a sign, which said, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,' but the chief priest and the elders wanted to be changed to say 'He claimed to be King of the Jews,' but Pilate would not allow the sign to be changed.") INRI is the Latin acronym for Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Hope this helped with your symbology question... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:20:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Howdy! > Basic combat is hardly "any situation". The very fact that tere > are numerous "fixes" for the amount of damage a vessel can take and > other fundamental mechanics indicates a serious problem. It is indeed a serious problem with the system as such, but the plethora of fixes available indicate that in play, it is a minor problem. Pick one 'fix' that suits your taste and run with it. > To which he responded: > Crap. All game systems need to compromise between simplicity and > realism. IN makes the simplicity more important than the realism. "Realism"? Won't touch that one... :) True, IN prefers simplicity. If you want more realism, just add it. It is much easier to add on to a simple mechanic than it is to dissect a complicated one. > In point of fact, the best ideas in IN come from this list...which > indicates again my dissatisfaction with the game line. The > Redneck Gaijin's IN campaign, the speculations on God's true > place in the universe...the list is consistently less > munchkin-ish and more oriented to ideas/philosophical debate than > the IN line is. There are some neat ideas that originated from this list... but there are always hits and misses, be it from a published rpg line or from a fan-list. > Instead, SJG seems to piss away all the possibillities of using > historical models and concentrates on comic book cutouts. Look > at what Atlas Games did with Jewish Kabbalism--real history > used to heighten and take what could be "another bunch of hedge > wizards" in a whole new direction. Yeah, you're right. Some of the IN supplements have had some rather goofy material. "Lifting" more material from historical, apocryphal, or mythological sources IS the way to go. > What do we know about Jews in IN? Squat. They have a patron AA. > > What do we know about Jesus in IN? Less than squat--even though > he's the CENTER of the Christian mythos that this > originally French Roman Catholic game was concerned with! > > What about Muslim faiths?...oh, that's right. Khalid. > I'm not even going to _touch_ this one, as everybody > has had a turn talking about the research and lack of > insight present in the current, bomb-wielding killer > version of the Muslim faith. Khalid was a bit underwhelming. But the point is that the IN line is trying to avoid supplying "answers" to VERY serious religious issues. It is much safer to talk about angels, daemons, and apocryphal material as this stuff is in our media all of the time in the form of best-selling books, TV shows, movies, etc. I shudder to think what would happen if the IN line pulled something in their background like Morrcock's "Behold The Man". Controversy on THAT level would sink the line. IN is, for all of its warnings, a relatively safe game based loosely on religious themes. I wouldn't mind seeing it mine some deeper materials from religious or historical sources, but that can always be added in by the GM. > I have not helped playtest > the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my > friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea > of > the system. A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN > is > _because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. When does SJG plan to release a Tether or Song book? What exactly IS their IN release schedule? > I understand. No one wants this game in my area without extensive > modification/expansion/rebuilding. Some games just don't take with certain groups. It tooks a LONG time for my old group to play the AMBER diceless RPG. My current group wants NOTHING to do with Legend of the Five Rings or GURPS. Oh, well. > So, somebody explain: how can a game about angels and demons be > out for over a year and a half and we do not have a supplement > on Religion? Why do we NEED a supplement on religion? The way it is set up now, any deeper relgious background would force a GMs hand as to their modeling of their gameworld. IN provides just enough detail, but leaves a lot of blanks that can be filled in very easily acording to a GM's preference. > > I mean, isn't that just silly? We have a book of artifacts and > a book of songs...look, I don't need any more doodads and > +3 swords of wounding, thank you. I'd like some of the > real research and intelligent writing I've seen in some of the > GURPS worldbooks. I have to agree with you there... A book with more Songs would be keen, s would a book with more Archangels and Demon Princes. > So...end of my rant. > > But I do want an answer on the religion issue. ;) I think that they should avoid the religion issue entirely, but I do agree with a lot of your points. It would be FANTASTIC if IN mined some of the early Christian and Jewish apocrypha for material. The Book of Enoch, The Books of Adam and Eve, The War Scroll; all of these have really neat materials that can either shape an IN backrgound or supply scneario ideas. True, a GM can add this to their campaigns on their own with a little research, but it WOULD be nice if the writers of the IN line would be a little more creative. Some of their scenerio hooks are rather poor. I do have to say that some of the material that has surfaced on this list is rather interesting. I am especially impressed with some of the Archangels and Demon Princes. Some of the Songs are nice as well. Is McCoy the current line editor? I guess she is the one we should be airing our comments to. Laterish! Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:31:09 -0400 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: IN> Jews in In Nomine (I'll probably get shot for this, but I figure that - given the current criticism of IN for ignoring the religions that spawned the game - it'd be worth it for someone to write up their impression of Judaism in the spirit in IN. Apologies to anyone that this offends. Also, this is probably slightly Jew-centric, but then again, the body of my historical knowledge of the religions happens to be centered around the Jews.) Judaism, arguably the world's oldest western religion (maybe Wicca or Druidism is old), is a hodge-podge of different views from different times; the primary references for the Jews are the Torah, the Mishnah, and the Talmud. I think that any discussion of Jews and Judaism would have to ignore the Mishnah (it's a book of rules on how to worship with no cohesive whole) and possibly parts of the Torah. Consider the Talmud, then, a text written by Rabbis during the Babylonian Exile. There's one story that I happen to like of how several Rabbis are arguing some small point, one against all the rest. The single one gets God to announce that he is right, and the other Rabbis tell God that they don't care, because once God gave them the Torah, it was up to them to reinterpret; this signaled the end, in many ways, of the notion of God telling the Jews how to interpret and act. I'd imagine that none of the Archangels in IN, with the possible exception of Yves, would want to touch the Jews with a ten-foot pole - especially given a Jewish belief that the sins of one Jew are felt by all Jews (see David and Beshabah). In fact, I'd be willing to guess Yves would have agreed with those Rabbis' actions, even if they alienated the vast majority of Heaven. Why? Knowledge, that Yves maintains, is based upon the reinterpretation of various works, since the technological knowledge of Heaven would be more likely to be in Jean's hands. So, the Jews have now alienated Heaven (except for Yves, but let's leave that alone for the moment), and so God decides that he needs a new religion to attend to his worship and so does something, bringing about Jesus on Earth (I'm not going to agree that Jesus was the son of God in this, merely some very ancient Seraph; I doubt that God himself would appear on Earth especially given how he acted at the Eden experiment, making Lucifer do the introduction and never really appearing). Jesus comes and does what he's supposed to (and I'd hate to feel the Seraph's trauma), bringing about the rise of a new religion, Christianity. (Can you imagine the disturbances in the Symphony when the Seraph returned to Earth as Jesus again?) Time goes along, and the Christians are busy cementing their hold on the Roman Empire; additionally, they are busy slaughtering the Jews for their involvement in the death of Jesus. Meanwhile, the Jews are continuing to try and understand how God could have forsaken them - and given the current events, it's hard to argue against that - but are also developing the Talmud into the core of a "new" Judaism, reinterpreting the old Torah to explain how to act and worship without the Temple or the high priests. Yves, knowing all, is supportive of this and continues to agree with the Jews, which also partially might explain why he had Gabriel deliver the Koran to Mohammed, as a counter-balance to the Christians (not really fans of knowledge, having papal ineffability) in support of the Jews (who follow knowledge and learning at this point as the keys to Heaven) - in support of a lesser aspect of his word, Destiny. Historically, Mohammed reached out to the Jews in Arabia, and the two groups got along for a while, until something happened (riots in some towns over Mosques and Synagogues - my money's on the fact that Shedites of Kronos were involved, to keep the groups separate, lest en mass, they reach their Destiny). (Interestingly enough, the greatest period of learning that the Jews have ever had occurred during the Moorish conquest of the Iberian peninsula; Moses Maimonedies was from Iberia, as were several other noted Jewish scholars. So I think that it's fair to say that Yves might have had the Torah and the Koran delivered to their respective religions because he knew that it would expand knowledge and get men to their Destiny.) Matt. [Angel of Weird Ideas, servant of Eli, kind of kicking it for now.] ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #985 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.