From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Fri Jun 5 06:19:52 1998 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 GAA01426 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:19:52 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id FAA13111 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:47:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:47:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199806051047.FAA13111@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 #808 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 Friday, June 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 808 In this digest: Re: IN> Choirness question IN> Re: IN- Plot device Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) IN> supporting cast Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) Re: IN> Summonable Feature Re: IN> Summonable Feature IN> Malakim resonance query IN> Role Levels -- another take Re: IN> supporting cast Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take IN> Word Forces Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: IN> Placing credit Re: IN> Word Forces Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: IN> Word Forces IN> ADMIN: Odd messages. (No IN material here.) Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: IN> Arthurian legend and other questions Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: IN> supporting cast Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 14:09:30 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Choirness question Kevin Walsh wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 07:18:19AM +0100, Jo Hart wrote: > If they are quite young or quite new to the work then I don't > > think they'd necessarily know that much about what attunements other > > superiors grant, unless they'd either been specially briefed or had a > > friend who worked for that superior, or if it was an especially well known > > or noisy one (like Smite :) ). > > I tend to assume that people have been building up a database of the > other side's powers for years. There are Falls and Redemptions, and Band > and Choir attunements are fairly static, so that knowledge has been > building up for a long while. So I don't see why angels wouldn't know that > sort of thing, if they could be bothered to learn and remember it. I > assumed that the stuff in the main book was common knowledge, _Knowledgeable_ people have the details memorized. For others (certainly ones that haven't had much contact with the other side), especially newer ones, the vast amount of information hasn't been absorbed yet. Does the Ofanim of Lightning attunement matter much when you are trying to get by on the streets of Shal-mari? Of course, especially important data (such as what Beth suggested) is taught because it _is_ especially important to the celestial in question. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 11:32:09 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Plot device Two important things about Malakites that make them superior to other angels -- they "can't" fall (OK, Fall of the Malakim will probably change this, but so far it stands), and they don't suffer trauma. Kill them, and they'll be right back just as bad if they have a body. How many Kyrios and Ofanites can say that? >From: Kevin Walsh >> Also an interesting side note: It's the ATTUMEMENTS, not the >> RESONANCE of Malakim that makes the combat machines. Ofanim and >> Kyriotates are much better suited to battle. A kyriotate can be a whole >> squad, and an ofanite is a pretty poor target, moving so fast and all. >> >Not just the attunements (in fact, for many of the attunements, I'd say >not the attunements at all), more the attitude, I'd say. And I've said >myself that the Malakite resonance is the least useful major angelic >resonance in combat. The Mercurian resonance might allow them to pick up >favourite tactics of the really combat obsessed. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire Demon of Napalm "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:05:52 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Bartholomew Hammerly wrote: > important things about Malakites ... they don't suffer trauma. Kill > them, and they'll be right back just as bad if they have a body. Not just that. Kill them, and you deliver them directly into their Superior's cathedral, knowing your current location. Damn straight they'll be right back, and they won't be alone. You have about two rounds to get away before the Malakim airstrike hits, compared to several days or weeks if you Traum any other angel. Malakim are scary not just because they are combat monsters, but because if you don't kill them, they will never let off you, and if you do kill them they and their friends will never let off you. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:13:07 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> The Hottest Computer.. plus a question Kevin Walsh wrote: > I don't have the book in front of me, which is why I delayed replying to > this for so long. (I'm more or less resigned to being without it for more > months now.) However, I'm pretty sure that the Calabite resonance rules > specifically state "resists with a higher check digit". Beyond that, I'm > surprised by your mention of a simple resistance roll. I was under the > impression that whenever the invoker of a power had to make a roll, that > any applicable resistance was a contest, with the sole exception of the > Balseraph resonance. Otherwise it's just too easy to make characters > immune to mental assaults, and the Ethereal and Celestial Songs of Entropy > become even less useful. Calabim-Game Mechanics (IN p.145) "Living beings may attempt a Strength roll to resist the infernal forces of entropy (or a Will roll, when resisting celestial damage)." > > > > Seventhly, what happens if a Calabite runs out of alternate targets? > > > > The Calabite can _always_ attack themselves and choose > > to fail the resistance roll. Yeah, it stings like the mother, > > but considering the alternatives... > > What I meant here was that the Calabite had failed the resonance roll on > itself, the ground, and all its clothing. That seems implausible, but I > suppose the answer is that the Calabite has to take the dissonance. I believe I answered this adequately in the rest of my message; ah, here it goes: - ---excerpt--- > My assumption has been (and is official unless Beth disagrees) > is that the Calabite must attempt their resonance each round til > they succeed. If they stop, voluntarily or not, they eat the > dissonance. They can still do whatever else is allowed in a > combat round (such as dodging, but not ACTIVE dodging) as long > as it doesn't interfere with their use of the resonance. - ---end excerpt--- So, yes, if they fail against _everything_, they would take dissonance, but, as I said, they can always target themselves and CHOOSE to fail the roll. (BTW, Beth did, in fact, agree...) > WRT to targeting, what is defined as a single object? Is the wheel of a > car a single object, or part of the car? Is the human eye? The handle of a > door? Single objects: Any creature, a small collection of objects that are touching (a bag of marbles), a door, the wheel of a car (plus probably a part of the steering column). Size is important here! Calabim have a _general_ field of entropy that can be focused to do specific damage, but even then they can't get it precisely narrowed down. I generally view the range as being between a foot in diameter up to about the size of a human body. Much larger creatures (a giraffe, fer instance), the GM can rule that it was just the legs that took the damage. They have a hard time with big things since they can't focus their field enough to do the damage. The problem with small things is that--as creatures of chaos and entropy-- Calabim aren't very good at focusing and constraints. They _can_ do it, but it takes an act of will to bring it about. For an appropriate penalty on the Resonance roll, I would allow the Calabim to do more detailed or trickier damage. To injure just part of something, use the Subtle Use (IPG p.29) chart. Spend a full round concentrating, and take a -4 on the resonance roll. This would let you get just ONE of the marbles, just the handle of the door (rather than a hole you can stick your head through), or someone's elbow (rather than general-body damage). This is how a Calabite would be 'artistic' as well! Cutting things with their Resonance, blasting their name into the side of buildings, carving a big swastika or pentagram on some jerk that gets in their way, etc. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:16:40 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 10:50 AM -0700 6/4/98, Gerry Mckelvey wrote: > >But, in the heaven/hell sourcebook, > >the pages talking about Saminga's realm states that the undead are all over > >the place there...and it makes a distinction between the damned souls and > >the undead... > > It does? > > > > I don't find this. It says undead are corporeal, and are made in > the corporeal realm. (Young Demons IPG, p.79) "...so the diabolical population of Abaddon is relatively small . . . while the undead are everywhere." - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:10:03 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Plot device At 20:05 04/06/98 +0100, you wrote: > > >Not just that. Kill them, and you deliver them directly into their >Superior's cathedral, knowing your current location. Damn straight they'll >be right back, and they won't be alone. On the plus side, this is a really fast way to get a message to their superior ;) 'Oh and be sure to tell Michael that I accept his invitation for the annual Heaven vs Hell cricket match next week' (** slice **) jo "Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was before hand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving HOW NOT TO DO IT." -- Dickens (Little Dorrit) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:57:21 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) At 3:16 PM -0400 6/4/98, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: >Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >> >> At 10:50 AM -0700 6/4/98, Gerry Mckelvey wrote: >> >But, in the heaven/hell sourcebook, >> >the pages talking about Saminga's realm states that the undead are all over >> >the place there...and it makes a distinction between the damned souls and >> >the undead... >> >> It does? >> >> >> >> I don't find this. It says undead are corporeal, and are made in >> the corporeal realm. > >(Young Demons IPG, p.79) "...so the diabolical population of Abaddon is >relatively small . . . while the undead are everywhere." Ah, so *there's* where I need to errata. Thank you. Add "on Earth" to that sentence. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:46:24 -0700 From: "Gerry Mckelvey" Subject: IN> supporting cast I like the idea that the Undead would be limited to Saminga's area's...I think I'll use that when I fire up this campaign sometime next month. But would the undead have to be granted a distinction to find Hell, or follow a demon home? they don't have a heart there so they wouldn't necessarily be able to just pop in and say 'hi boss!'... I don't think Saminga would like the surprise...he dosen't strike me as a congenial host... maybe the undead zone could be warded in hell? to keep uninvited guests locked in till someone came and cleared them? Jerry McKelvey Exitus Acta Probat. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:55:28 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > >(Young Demons IPG, p.79) "...so the diabolical population of Abaddon is > >relatively small . . . while the undead are everywhere." > > Ah, so *there's* where I need to errata. Thank you. "I live to serve. " --Tina, Lilim of Haagenti. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)380-4629 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:00:23 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Undead and Celestial realm (Re: supporting cast) At 1:59 PM -0400 6/4/98, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >At 10:50 AM -0700 6/4/98, Gerry Mckelvey wrote: >>But, in the heaven/hell sourcebook, >>the pages talking about Saminga's realm states that the undead are all over >>the place there...and it makes a distinction between the damned souls and >>the undead... > >It does? > > > >I don't find this. It says undead are corporeal, and are made in >the corporeal realm. Well, that's because it's not in Heaven & Hell. It's in the Infernal Player's Guide, page 79, usecond paragraph under "Young Demons." "Saminga would rather invest his Forces in undead servitors than in new demons, so the diabolical population of Abaddon is relatively small...while the undead are everywhere." Or at least, that's the only such reference I recall. = http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh ============== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Melvil, Djinn Knight of Fate, the Demon of Dewey Decimal System. ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:29:47 -0400 From: Matthias Müller Subject: Re: IN> Summonable Feature John Karakash wrote: > Summonable Containers (description snipped) Hey, nice idea, thanks ! This will come in handy later, the Shedite might get a summonable scabbard later - if he's been a good Servitor, of course. -Matthias Instant madness - just add brain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:30:37 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Summonable Feature At 11:46 AM -0400 6/4/98, John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > David is exactly right. Plus there's a version of >Summonable called 'concealed weapon' that has an interesting >twist. It costs one point more, but you pay Essence when >_concealing_ it, rather than when summoning it. > If anyone wonders why Corporeal artifacts are >cool, you can always point to the Summonable feature. It's >astoundingly useful and flexible. I'm thinking about writing >a vignette where a demon has built an amazing vehicle, but >it's stuck in the cavern where he built it because it won't >fit through the entrance! A great reason to have Summonable! ;) >All those times when you _need_ something right now... >well, there you go. > Another thing that a GM might let you do is >to make Summonable containers that continue to carry their >contents. There should be a cost involved in this... >+4 for a pouch-sized object up to +whatever for REALLY >big things. This won't work on creatures and I'm not >gonna work out the implications of time passage and food >spoilage and whatnot, but you can see how useful this might >be. Well, okay, I _will_ do it. ;) [Snip] And there are so many other neat uses for Summonable. There's the creaper version of the "Emperor's New Suit" artifact: A Corporeal artifact that's a exquisitely tailored suit with the Summonable Feature. Modify tit so it fits your target, who is preferably a head of state, a politician, or some other respected community leader who's going to make a public speech, preferably on live television, so you can watch. At the most inopportune of moments, summon your suit, and leave the poor guy sputtering in his underwear. Hours of fun for the whole family. (The other version is a suit with Etherel Form that only works for the Suit, but has the problems of the owner has to be right there to trigger the effect, and you may not get your suit back in the ensuing mayhem.) One might also consider a version that you can summon onto your body, for those occasions when you don't have time to get dressed quickly. For the more bloody-minded, there's the "Badyear Radial". It's a corporeal artifact tire with the Summonable feature. Place it on your victim's car in secret, and wait for them to take it out onto the highway. Then repossess your tire, and watch the fireworks. Or don't, they'll likely be on the news at 11. You may not want to bring your tire back directly, to your hands... if it doesn't lose its rotational motion, you may be holding onto a tire spinning at 70 mph. Painful. On the flip side, it can make a handy weapon, especially if you attatch it to your own car, jack up the wheels, and tie down the accellerator in preparation. "Think fast!" I probably don't have to explain the fun one can have with the "Summonable Pacemaker," or the "Summonable hundred-dollar bill." = http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh ============== nofori@pop3.utoled.edu === Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving Melvil, Djinn Knight of Fate, the Demon of Dewey Decimal System. ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:42:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: IN> Malakim resonance query The Malakim check digit 6 result is: - -- You know the height or depth of spirit the person truly aspires to, as well as his full potential for divinity or malevolence in the Symphony. This will not allow a Malakim to automatically detect demons -- there are plenty of humans who are more selfish than most Diabolicals ... except for Balseraphs. As the most selfish of demons, extremely perceptive Malakim know a Belseraph for what it is. - -- How does this work -- does it tell you the upside for angels and the downside for demons? What about angels who are on the verge of Falling but might pull back in time? Or demons who are actively working to be Redeemed? Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:58:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Nutt Subject: IN> Role Levels -- another take The reappearance of this dicsussion prompted me to wonder a few things. If you postulate that a celestial without a high-level Role has insufficient paperwork/background to get along in today's world, or even no paperwork at all, what do you do about other, more mundane things? Where does the celestial keep his stuff? Does his car have valid registration? Does a celestial without a Role even *have* stuff like a car or an apartment? How'd he get it, if he *does* have it? What does he do when his clothes get dirty - -- hide nude in a laundromat while his clothes get washed, bumming change from the other patrons to pay for it? If you postulate that a lot of these things get taken care of *somehow*, then it doesn't seem to me to be too big a leap to give him a valid identity, with a Social Security number, valid driver's license, place to live, and so on and so forth. If somebody is giving him spending money, paying for his apartment, getting his car registered, paying the utility and phone bills, etc., etc., then why can't you figure that they can provide him with documentation? Sure, it might not be strong enough to hold up to an intense background check by determined investigators... but it ought to pass an initial check fairly well. My solution is to get players to *justify* their Roles, and rule that Level can be no lower than (Status - 1) for the Role. If you've aroused enough suspicion that the FBI is interviewing people you supposedly went to high school with, you've blown your "covert assignment", anyway. "I know the old saw about 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink'... but I believe you can hold the horse's head underwater and make him think about it for a while." -- Dr. Jane Walters, my high school principal ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:03:08 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> supporting cast On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Gerry Mckelvey wrote: > I like the idea that the Undead would be limited to Saminga's area's...I > think I'll use that when I fire up this campaign sometime next month. But > would the undead have to be granted a distinction to find Hell, or follow a > demon home? they don't have a heart there so they wouldn't necessarily be > able to just pop in and say 'hi boss!'... > I don't think Saminga would like the surprise...he dosen't strike me as a > congenial host... > maybe the undead zone could be warded in hell? to keep uninvited guests > locked in till someone came and cleared them? Maybe they can only travel between the realms throug Tethers? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! Geography is just therapy for imperialists. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:29:18 -0500 (CDT) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> Role Levels -- another take >The reappearance of this dicsussion prompted me to wonder a few things. If >you postulate that a celestial without a high-level Role has insufficient >paperwork/background to get along in today's world, or even no paperwork at >all, what do you do about other, more mundane things? Where does the >celestial keep his stuff? Does his car have valid registration? Does a >celestial without a Role even *have* stuff like a car or an apartment? How'd >he get it, if he *does* have it? What does he do when his clothes get dirty >-- hide nude in a laundromat while his clothes get washed, bumming change >from the other patrons to pay for it? No, hardly. A celestial can have, and probably does have, some basic identificatlon. Without a Role, though, most of the ID he or she does have will have no basis in fact, i. e. no 'paper trail' to make it seem as if s/he is a real human being. >Sure, it might not be strong enough to hold up to an intense background >check by determined investigators... but it ought to pass an initial check >fairly well. My solution is to get players to *justify* their Roles, and >rule that Level can be no lower than (Status - 1) for the Role. If you've >aroused enough suspicion that the FBI is interviewing people you supposedly >went to high school with, you've blown your "covert assignment", anyway. Hardly. Role level and Status are not necessarily linked- a Role of Trashman/6 is unlikely to have a Status of 5, or 'minor celebrity.' A Role's Level is the level of security, the depth of proof, that the Role has. (A Role/1 is one where paperwork, if investigated, will check out, nothing else, whereas a Role/6 is a Role where there is absolutely, without question, no way that even the most thorough questioning or background check could show up the Celestial as being not human.) Redneck Kris Overstreet, web pages beyond belief http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:23:14 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Word Forces >>>Nah. Just release a general errata, along the lines of "All previously written word-bound characters are assumed to have Word Forces equivalent to approximately one-third their total (written) Forces. The GM may adjust this where appropriate, of course." Then write up a short list of important NPCs who have significantly more/fewer WForces.<<< That's not such a simple proposition. Effectively increasing so many previously written characters' Forces by a third radically changes game balance -- and some of the scenarios in which those characters appeared will be altered as a result. It would be akin to adding a GURPS rule that says "Retroactively, assume that every previously published character with ST 14+ automatically has 4 Extra Hit Points, and every character with DX 14+ automatically has Combat Reflexes." Or something like that. It's a mess. As you might guess, I have serious reservations about "Word Forces." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 98 19:57 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) >> The main problem is that adding them now will require >> errata'ing all the prior published Word-bound characters. > >Nah. Just release a general errata, along the lines of "All previously >written word-bound characters are assumed to have Word Forces equivalent >to approximately one-third their total (written) Forces. Elizabeth and I have been discussing something similar, such as "equal to number of listed Rites and attunements", but that's just handwaving at this point... I need to see how it fits with the existing Word-bound. >That sounds good. Think you'll be letting us playtesters look at this one, >this time? Since it'll probably not be part of the "plotline", it should >be safe... I don't know whether Tethers will go up for general playtest or not, but as you point out, there's no real reason why it couldn't be. Not My Decision.... However, I may post little pieces and ask for comments here and there. From the last round of discussion, I got the impression that most of the people here favored the concept of Word Forces, at least. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 98 20:00 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Placing credit >Need another playtester? :-) Right now, all "official" playtesters are also writers/editors for IN. There's also been some stuff put up for general playtest at the SJGames web site. (It would probably now be accessible through Pyramid, if anything goes up for general playtest again.) So it doesn't serve much point to ask, sorry. Maybe policy will change at some point, but that's the way it is now for IN. (GURPS has a more open playtest policy these days.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 98 20:16 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Word Forces > Effectively increasing so many >previously written characters' Forces by a third radically changes game >balance -- and some of the scenarios in which those characters appeared >will be altered as a result. Elizabeth and I were thinking that many of the existing Word-bound (other than Superiors, of course) might have only a single Word Force, which has much less impact. But it *is* a bit ugly, and I'm not particularly happy with it myself. However, I think we're going to need something like this as a point-sink for PCs, otherwise they're more likely to keep boosting their regular Forces. And it helps in a number of other ways. I don't like changing existing canon, but sometimes its better to do an outright clean fix than a series of patches. (GURPS went through a number of such changes between 2nd and 3rd edition, actually.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 02:22:04 +0200 (DFT) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > However, I may post little pieces and ask for comments here and there. > >From the last round of discussion, I got the impression that most of the > people here favored the concept of Word Forces, at least. I haven't entered this thread before, but I don't like being part of a silent majority. ;) I'm not sure I like Word Forces - it upsets the nice balance of the Forces, I think. What is it in a word that's beyond the Corporeal, Ethereal and Celestial? I'm not sure the benefits of Word Forces is worth upsetting that balance. Couldn't the greater power of Word-bound Celestials be modelled in some other way? Attunements only available to Word-bounds perhaps? "You can store X extra Essence" where X depends on how strong the Word is in the world. Different attunements for the creation of Vessels, granting of Rites, and so on. Am I just being conservative here? :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! Geography is just therapy for imperialists. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:17:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Word Forces On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > >>>Nah. Just release a general errata, along the lines of "All previously > written word-bound characters are assumed to have Word Forces equivalent > to approximately one-third their total (written) Forces. The GM may adjust > this where appropriate, of course." Then write up a short list of > important NPCs who have significantly more/fewer WForces.<<< > > That's not such a simple proposition. Effectively increasing so many > previously written characters' Forces by a third radically changes game > balance -- and some of the scenarios in which those characters appeared > will be altered as a result. > > It would be akin to adding a GURPS rule that says "Retroactively, assume > that every previously published character with ST 14+ automatically has 4 > Extra Hit Points, and every character with DX 14+ automatically has Combat > Reflexes." I don't see the big deal. I mean...the fact that (say) 4 Word forces are added to a celestial has the following effect: They have 4 extra essence; they make an extra +4 disturbance when doing certain things. That's it. Aside from making them a little tougher in celestial combat (IF word forces can be lost that way), there's no other way which they'll be affected. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me... Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:41:42 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> ADMIN: Odd messages. (No IN material here.) One of the subscribers has had someone forging its email address on mail it did not send, and has asked if I know of anyone else who has had their email address forged in such a way. Since I don't know, I thought I'd ask. Send me the email directly, please. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com (yes, technically list admin) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 05:47:46 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) At 19:57 04/06/98 EDT, you wrote: > >From the last round of discussion, I got the impression that most of the >people here favored the concept of Word Forces, at least. I don't much care for introducing something new which requires so much reworking of old stuff, myself. I'd rather see a range of word-bound/ superior effects that have to be rolled at a huge penalty and/or have a minimum forces requirement to pull off, and scads more things for word-bound to spend cps on (such as more competent servitors, the ability to be summoned etc ;) ). I also think the power of the thing is less interesting than the politics. Once you are word-bound (or even given a rank) you're into a whole new political ball-park -- I think it'd be a real shame to focus on the mechanics and ignore that. jo "Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was before hand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving HOW NOT TO DO IT." -- Dickens (Little Dorrit) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:58:19 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Arthurian legend and other questions > Though not IN, there's GURPS Camelot, which covers the historical > Arthur, as well as the "classical" and Hollywood versions. It was > heavily researched, and contains a lot of good stuff. It may prove > useful as source material, and it shouldn't be *too* hard to convert > character stats, if it comes to that. Unfortunately, it's out of print, > so you'd have to check with one of the used game dealers to see if they > have a copy. PenDragon, from Chaosium is another good source about the Arthur mythos ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:36:35 -0400 From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) Jo Hart wrote: > > At 19:57 04/06/98 EDT, you wrote: > > > >From the last round of discussion, I got the impression that most of the > >people here favored the concept of Word Forces, at least. > > I don't much care for introducing something new which requires so much > reworking of old stuff, myself. I'd rather see a range of word-bound/ > superior effects that have to be rolled at a huge penalty and/or have a > minimum forces requirement to pull off, and scads more things for > word-bound to spend cps on (such as more competent servitors, the ability > to be summoned etc ;) ). > I agree with you, Jo. Just see the rant below. > I also think the power of the thing is less interesting than the politics. > Once you are word-bound (or even given a rank) you're into a whole new > political ball-park -- I think it'd be a real shame to focus on the > mechanics and ignore that. > Hear, hear. That's what attracted me to IN in the first place -- it was politics heavy, and rules light. I saw so many opportunities for role-playing as opposed to rollplaying that it inspired me. I might eventually get that story written about my namesake (Tomas, Mercurian of Creation, Angel of Catchy Tunes -- and if you talk to anyone that knows me, you would know that description fits me to a 'T'). Another thing that I liked about IN was that it gave *many* perceptions of good and evil, and the good guys don't necessarily agree with one another. In IN there isn't any absolute "Good" or "Evil" -- each Superior interprets these terms the best way they know how. Compare, for example, Laurence's interpretation of Good with, say, Novalis's interpretation. I found this incredibly profound, and it has made me look at my and other religions in a different light. I think that's what we lose sight of here on the list. In our arguments about the rules (broken or not), it becomes very easy to forget what this game is actually about -- those interpretations of Good and Evil. As it turns out, this is the main reason I often don't reply to any messages on this list unless I can think of something funny to say. Hardcore rules discussions simply don't interest me, and they often degenerate into flame wars over the stupidest things. I don't *want* stats for Superiors. I think it cheapens their profundity. For example, assigning stats to Gabriel to me would be like trying to put stats on godly inspiration, or even on Fire (as the mystical definition of such a term, and all its implications) itself. Gabriel to me is more than just the AA of Fire -- she is the embodiment of fire... and I think assigning numbers to that cheapens it. I see Superiors more as Forces of Nature then NPCs, and I treat them as I would any other environmental effect. What I mean is that if you want to assign stats to Superiors more than has already been done, go right ahead. I just like the things the way they are now. Even if things in canon were to change, I would continue to do things the way I've always done them because it has deeper meaning to me that way. As Dennis Miller would say: "That's just my opinion -- I could be wrong." - -- Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7789233/ UIN: 7789233 http://www.accessdenied.net/cgi-bin/main.cgi?userid=326&newuser=profile MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:05:49 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: Re: IN> supporting cast Gerry Mckelvey writes: >Can someone who is turned into a mummy/vampire ever be put back to normal? >(presuming they want to be that is...) Well, I don't know enough about mummies, but there are various folklores around the world that describe ways of preventing vampirism. Eating mold from the grave of the vampire that attacked you, for example. There are also measures that can be taken to ensure that corpses do not return as undead. These vary from culture to culture, and do not necessarily resemble the Hollywood stereotypes. Take a look at GURPs Blood Types, or Matthew Bunson's excellent Vampire Encyclopedia for inspiration. There was also a recent article in Pyramid on Chinese vampires. It just strikes me as not unreasonable that Eli has concocted one or two antidotes to Saminga's experiments over the years, and passed this info on to wisefolk, gypsies, etc. Who knows, maybe you can get a high from grave mold? ;) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:30:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) <<< No Message Collected >>> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:30:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: Word Forces (was Re: IN> Placing credit) On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Thomas Davidson wrote: > I don't *want* stats for Superiors. I think it cheapens their > profundity. Thomas...uh, we weren't talking about giving Superiors stats. We were talking about how to handle Word-Bound PCs and NPCs...ya know, the normal 9-18 Force ones. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! | "Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke is more than just a meaningless | | slogan; it's actually a pretty serious statement, and one that I hold | | true to, with a cream pie in one hand and a chainsaw in the other..." | | -- Me | ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #808 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.