From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Mar 23 18:23:18 1999 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 SAA22748 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:23:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id SAA11181 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:26:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:26:01 -0600 Message-Id: <199903240026.SAA11181@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 #1174 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, March 23 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1174 In this digest: Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list [FLUFF] Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Second Edition Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> purity crusade stuff Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> purity crusade stuff Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list IN> Biblical Hebrew Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Biblical Hebrew Re: IN> Discussion on the list IN> NPOTD Re: IN> Discussion on the list Re: IN> Discussion on the list IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas IN> New directions, to breathe life. . . Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:02:04 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list At 7:52 PM +0100 3/23/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: [...] >manner, because the creators have shot all those topics dead, put them in >big, black body-bags and put huge, neon-green tags on them saying "Canon >Doubt and Uncertainty! Don't bother us about it, make up your own stuff!" And if the books said outright, "Jesus was [x], and Janus is/not Valefor, and Yves is going senile..."? Wouldn't that close the exact same doors, because it had been nailed down as canon? From my point of view, it's a catch-22. (And no, I don't care about discussions about what Jesus was, and the implications. I just care if people start treating someone's take on it as canon, or act as if I or Karakash or any author is going to say, "By heck, we're going to do it *your* way!" if they just keep repeating their stance enough times. IOW, so long as there's some clarification about someone's take on things, so that we *don't* get bound up in canon/non-canon, I either don't care, or actually enjoy discussions in CDaU. Look at the Dark Victory stuff -- now talk about *non-canon*. Great stuff there. There was some discussion about pagan/Bright victories, but those, sadly, never got off the ground. I, myself, would love to see more of the implications for "what if the ethereals are right, and Yaweh is just one of them with a mongo powersource?" Puts an interesting slant on the Purity Crusade, eh? Or fifty different "why X is really about to Fall/Redeem" discussions. Or "Why Destiny is Bad." Or...) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:02:14 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list >It's not always a bad thing to be honest, btw. I mean, I know alot of >people would really prefer that I stood on a box and announced that In >Nomine was "great and wonderful and perfect" and gave my undying worship. >Unfortunately... has anyone read the Dilbert book where Scott Adams talks >about extreme Engineering Honesty? It's actually extremely true, oddly >enough. We sort of keep the world running, so going around with false >smiles on our faces and claiming everything works for the sake of >emotional feelings just doesn't sit well --- I mean, if the entire network >is crashing and 1000 people can no longer get medical treatment, what good >is an engineer who announces that the network is well built and works >smoothly all the time? [Except in Management? :) ] > In my day job, here at the school, I'm a long boring title that means "IT professional who gets to go to committee meetings, talk to vendors, and tell my staff to do the fun stuff that I got into IT to do in the first place." My staff gets me lots of "Pointy Hair Boss" memorabilia and lots of coffee, and probably loves In Nomine because it means I'm doing something else with my idle time instead of poking my nose into how they do things. In that time, I mostly speak to Sales Trolls. All day. Every day. You see, we're bidding out a major backbone upgrade. Brewster Academy's gone gaga for technology -- five years running now -- so we have a network whose port density is the same as Bowdoin College's and bigger than most state universities. So they hunt us like sharks, trying to suck down that sweet sweet bond money. We have one (1) company that didn't send a Sales Troll and doesn't have a Sales Troll come to talk to me. They send an Engineer, who rants about things, is painfully honest in great detail, and does everything that makes Sales Trolls curl up and die, like say "that can't be done -- anyone who says it can is a liar. This is what we *can* do, and this is how we can do *that* for less money." That company got the contract. I like people who are honest, who can see the flaws, who can see the cracks, who don't do this because they make a commission but because they *want* the system to *work.* This guy, and the engineers who accompany other Sales Trolls (and sometimes are allowed to speak) want to improve our network because that's what they *do.* I appreciate it in the workplace. I also appreciate it here, because these are the people who are tearing apart the underpinnings and testing them for compatibility and compliance. I'm not good at tearing apart mechanics -- which is why I debate the philosophy *behind* a Lilim Geas but not the game mechanic that represents it. I vastly prefer gaming with people who are allergic to dice. Knowing people who want to tear apart the system, its underpinnings, its source materials, its historical background etc. and really push the whole thing to be *better* are out there and are vocal is something I like about this list. It doesn't degenerate into personal attacks or flamewars that I've seen (or not mostly), but people are still able to express themselves and *really* push things forward. And I get the feeling they like doing it. I mean, I get to read and participate in a list with you, Ramesh, David Edelstein, Anders, Jo, the Steves, Earl, Elizabeth, so on and so forth and etc. all culminating in Beth, who can use the Canon Hammer when it applies but also argue/posit/expound when it *doesn't.* This beats rec.games.frp.misc *all* hollow. It was what we used to have on the Superguy list. What a really wild semester of 20th Century American Poetry was like. All this, and I get to write about Archangels with names that make them sound like they should be able to transform into giant robots and fight Decepticons. Frankly, to me the strength of In Nomine isn't its system or its background, but the fact that we can tear them both apart and still have a good time. >Same principle. It could be why Elohim are seen as engineers. > Which may be why I identify with the Elohim so much. I wish I could emulate them better, but the Inner Habbalite keeps coming out. >Honesty is an amazingly unpleasant and ugly thing, and no one, especially >gamers, ever want to hear it. But really, it's just my engineering >hat, nothing more, nothing less. I'm programmed to find design flaws >and expose them in some vain, frantic, frustrated, useless, undying hope >that the problem will be fixed, if not by me, then by someone out there in >the world. If I wanted to attack people personally, as I tend to say, I >usually say "yo mama". I extremely rarely name names. > You haven't that I've seen, even when you're at your most frustrated. >So the question is... do you want worship or do you want the truth? >Unfortunately, and really sadly, most people want the former, and I'm >wired to give the latter. It's human nature, but *shrug*. > >- Em I want the latter, and I'm glad you're giving it. And hope you'll continue to do so. This list would get really useless really fast without it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:04:24 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list >jo >(We had a memo round from senior management the other day, requesting that >engineers not talk to sales people or customers. Apparently engineers want >to actually help customers solve their problems, to the extent of admitting >when they've found problems with the product and letting them know when >we've fixed it, but 'this is not how sales people work') This is exactly what I was saying before, Jo. Fortunately, I only have one peer who thinks he understands IT, and I have the power to overrule him. So I get to pick and choose who I spend the Academy's money with. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:07:18 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list [FLUFF] > > Which is responded to, in kind, with "It's not canon" or "It's canon doubt > > and uncertaintly". This has a disturbing tendancy to kill the thread. I > > myself cannot venture out theories about Jesus Christ because I'll be > > smacked down and sent to my room as fast as the message appears on the > > List. Which is why there aren't any... and my room is a real pit. I'm > > such a slob. My Dad calls me "a house pig". *sigh* > > You ain't seen my room... Living away from home has its privileges, one of > which is the ability to have a room messy enough to scare the Jehova's > Witnesses away. :) Dude, I haven't lived at home in 8 years. :) This, of course, doesn't stop people from making sordid commentary about my lifestyle. My living room is owned by books and musical instruments. There's this little niche on the side there for me. :) > If my admittedly quite flippant comment was seen as insulting, I humbly > apologize. It was not intended that way. I was just a bit surprised at my > own desire to, well, rant on this subject. Must have taken dissonance from > it too, aspiring Elohite that I am. :P No biggee. Now go to your room. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:16:42 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list >If my admittedly quite flippant comment was seen as insulting, I humbly >apologize. It was not intended that way. I was just a bit surprised at my >own desire to, well, rant on this subject. Must have taken dissonance from >it too, aspiring Elohite that I am. :P > To be impassioned about a subject you have objectively determined is the correct course of action is not dissonance. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | non in-nomine mail to sabre@annotations.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:31:08 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list > IOW, so long as there's some clarification about someone's take on > things, so that we *don't* get bound up in canon/non-canon, I > either don't care, or actually enjoy discussions in CDaU. But they almost always do these days. Go back in the digests and look for yourself. When almost no one here was writing the game, there were almost no discussions of "it's canon" or "it's not canon" or it's "cdau". Now it's "my canon" or "your canon" or "the canon I wrote..." Amazing how this kills conversation in a hurry. Do I want to compete with someone with the definitive canon? Not really. I was actually really really happy to see David start posting "weird stuff". It wasn't exactly new, but it was weird, so it made me happy. > Look at the Dark Victory stuff -- now talk about *non-canon*. > Great stuff there. There was some discussion about pagan/Bright > victories, but those, sadly, never got off the ground. > > I, myself, would love to see more of the implications for "what if > the ethereals are right, and Yaweh is just one of them with a > mongo powersource?" Puts an interesting slant on the Purity Crusade, > eh? > > Or fifty different "why X is really about to Fall/Redeem" discussions. > > Or "Why Destiny is Bad." And all of these threads have been discussed, some of them twice, some of them more. So I'm missing the point. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:44:19 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Second Edition >Less of the stereotypes. I am one of those who doesn't want to hear that >Malakim are humourless, Seraphim have long fingers, and Habbalah wear >clothes which expose their midriffs. Or, in my own personal favorite example, that djinn don't care. Especially if it's used as a handwave to avoid actually considering what a djinn character might actually think. Jason - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) werther@hilander.com (play) "But, except in dreams, you're never really free and don't the sun look angry at me?" _Desperadoes_Under_The_Eaves_, Warren Zevon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:44:04 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list Okay, IN is the first gaming list I've participated in, even though I've gamed for decades. But surely questions about what the setting includes, excludes, or deliberately does not settle are common enough in every game? (Maybe IN has an especially large amoung of the last, but so what?) I don't see why the list should be dying. I don't expect it to be immortal, but some topics are pretty open-ended. There's - - characters - - settings - - adventure seeds & similar - - gaming anecdotes - - house rules & variations - - "how *I* resolve the canonically unresolved" - - reviews of game-relevant books & movies What else does one discuss on any game list? Emily Dresner wrote (quoting Beth): > > Look at the Dark Victory stuff -- now talk about *non-canon*. > > Great stuff there. There was some discussion about pagan/Bright > > victories, but those, sadly, never got off the ground. > > > > I, myself, would love to see more of the implications for "what if > > the ethereals are right, and Yaweh is just one of them with a > > mongo powersource?" Puts an interesting slant on the Purity Crusade, > > eh? > > > > Or fifty different "why X is really about to Fall/Redeem" discussions. > > > > Or "Why Destiny is Bad." > > And all of these threads have been discussed, some of them twice, some of > them more. So I'm missing the point. I think Beth was giving Dark Victory as a really engrossing instance of a non-canonical variation, and hoping there would be others, and likewise saying the other ideas, or their variations, aren't mined out yet. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:00:52 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> purity crusade stuff On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Martin Arnold wrote: > I wonder what would have happened if the situation had been > reversed…(waves hands and wobbles about)? Reversed in which way? Blandine killing the dragons, or the dragons (et al) winning the Crusade? Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:11:54 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list > I don't see why the list should be dying. I don't expect it to > be immortal, but some topics are pretty open-ended. > > What else does one discuss on any game list? That stuff and more. The In Nomine game lends itself to sort of a philosophical musing about God and the Universe - which is the general appeal to many people, at least here in the Great White North (you bet). Things like campaign seeds and settings and characters tend to be one trick ponies: once you've posted them, they're kind of done. And you can't really _talk_ about other people's settings ad nausem, and people get tired of posting them. This is why threads of conversation about rules and setting keep coming back up again. Unfortunately, the game is closing off many of these options. Things like tethers and roles are gone forever as topics, and they generated a huge pile of postings. There's really nothing to replace them. The other problem is that the holes in the system are really obvious: people talking about Lilim and Geasa for one, keeps coming up because there's little understanding, the material isn't clear, and people have found that, via the miracle of bad writing and being unclear and the like, they have this hole through which they can use to discuss this topic. So it comes up again and again and again. The Purity Crusade as well, because it's defined as existing, but not defined in the sense of being detailed enough to describe Uriel's motivations and the outcome, so it's still very interesting. When it does get 100% defined, all discussion will stop on this topic -- unless its written in such a way as to open it up further. We'll just have to see. So yes, book reviews and game reviews and setting and characters are all part of the List, but it's supposed to be about _discussion_, and when the discussion dries up, the List will go away, like so much dust in the wind. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:34:37 -0800 (PST) From: -=|horsefly|=- Subject: Re: IN> purity crusade stuff an interesting idea, that. hmm, Uriel's Purity Crusade did Blandine a backhanded favor. let's see where i can run with this. humans in IN think dragons, unicorns, basalisks , griffons, and lot of other interesting critters are extinct. merfolk are long gone. the faeries up and left the party long ago. but where are we now? role-playing companies have in recent years set about exploring these topics, and Blandine has reaped the Essence. genetics engineers are hard at work doing all sorts of stuff, and who knows if some of them aren't being inspired by Blandine's to *create* humans who can live and breathe underwater! SCUBA is one thing, but imagine not having to deal with the clunky air tanks, the tubes, the mask, and all the rest. Eli and Blandine must be having a field day with the subject of merfolk in human minds today alone. what about unicorns? again, genetic engineers with goofy ideas, and the ever present tabloid newspapers (how often does Nybbas kick himself because he's actually inspiring people instead of slackening their will to do anything vital?!) are always a source of... creativity in this department. Uriel certainly did make martyrs out of many Etherials, because while their corporeal bodies may have been slain and the spirits driven into the Marches, humans remembered. and humans keep dreaming. i wonder what Blandine would say if confronted with the idea that Uriel did her a favor. i wonder if the inquititor would live past asking the question. -=|horsefly|=- "Back off, preacher, I don't care if it's Sunday. I ain't no angel, but I never felt better!" --FREEDOM, Alice Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:33:18 -0000 From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list - - >Things like campaign seeds and settings and characters tend to be one >trick ponies: once you've posted them, they're kind of done. I could cope with more, if people wanted to post them! :) jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:37:28 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list > - > >Things like campaign seeds and settings and characters tend to be one > >trick ponies: once you've posted them, they're kind of done. > > > I could cope with more, if people wanted to post them! :) > Me too actually. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:56:37 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > At 7:52 PM +0100 3/23/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > [...] > >manner, because the creators have shot all those topics dead, put them in > >big, black body-bags and put huge, neon-green tags on them saying "Canon > >Doubt and Uncertainty! Don't bother us about it, make up your own stuff!" > > And if the books said outright, "Jesus was [x], and Janus is/not > Valefor, and Yves is going senile..."? Wouldn't that close the > exact same doors, because it had been nailed down as canon? I think the problem is that there is no information at all, apart from very vague hints that "some Archangels say they have some suspicions about this or that", which means there's no common ground for discussion. What I would like is some possible scenarios, perhaps sketchy, perhaps more developed. I don't think it would be impossible to come up with three or four ways each area of CDaU could be resolved, and discuss what effects each possibility would have on the gaming world. The way it is now it feels like SJG ignores these areas instead of using them - since they are officially Not To Be Meddled With these things per definition have to be without effect on the background of the gaming universe, which is, IMNSHO, stupid. Take Jesus, as one example. Exactly how Christianity was created can have a vast impact on the relations between Superiors, how Celestials view humanity and so on, but since it's CDaU it's not -allowed- to have any important effects. They become non-events, non-situations. "Yeah, maybe Janus and Valefor are the same, but it wouldn't change anything because it's CDaU." Not every GM wants to create large parts of the background for the game from scratch. > >From my point of view, it's a catch-22. Only if you make it one. It's not "either we don't say anything or we give you every detail". That's just not how it works, IMO. Look at the Purity Crusade. There we have some details on what happened - Uriel tried to exterminate the Ethereals and got yanked up to the Higher Heavens. I think there have been big discussions about it exactly because A) it's an important event in the background for the game and B) we are given some, but not all, of the details. The same thing could be done with Jesus and so on. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:57:57 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > >If my admittedly quite flippant comment was seen as insulting, I humbly > >apologize. It was not intended that way. I was just a bit surprised at my > >own desire to, well, rant on this subject. Must have taken dissonance from > >it too, aspiring Elohite that I am. :P > > > > To be impassioned about a subject you have objectively determined is the > correct course of action is not dissonance. Ah, it's always good to rationalize away that nagging feeling of having done something really stupid. I am, after all, one of the few True Angels... oh wait, where did all these piercings come from? Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:07:28 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Emily Dresner wrote: > Unfortunately, the game is closing off many of these options. Things like > tethers and roles are gone forever as topics, and they generated a huge > pile of postings. There's really nothing to replace them. IMO, postings don't have an intrinsic value. Tethers and roles were discussed because they weren't described in much detail in the basic book. > The other problem is that the holes in the system are really obvious: > people talking about Lilim and Geasa for one, keeps coming up because > there's little understanding, the material isn't clear, and people have > found that, via the miracle of bad writing and being unclear and the like, > they have this hole through which they can use to discuss this topic. So > it comes up again and again and again. Hm. First you complain that the parts that generated huge number of posts are gone, and then you complain that one of them is still here? :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:00:06 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Biblical Hebrew >>>It's the Hebrew verb construction, which is extremely straight forward and lends itself to the "And he said... and she spoke... And God smote unto the stinky people which were in the valley" that you read in English. It's not actually there, that's just how the tense was translated in your Bible.<<< Yes, but that has led to a particular style of English writing that most English-speakers now associate with "Biblical language." >>>Hebrew is not exactly the most complicated language on the planet. If I can learn it....<<< I've studied 9 languages at one time or another, and for various lengths of time. Including Arabic, whose grammar is very similar to Hebrew. But, frankly, as much as I enjoy In Nomine and do like to do some research so I can write good stuff for it, learning another language just to add a little verisimilitude to my prose is not something my current schedule will allow.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:59:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list > Hm. First you complain that the parts that generated huge number of posts > are gone, and then you complain that one of them is still here? :) You can tell I'm getting tired. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:10:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Biblical Hebrew > I've studied 9 languages at one time or another, and for various lengths of > time. Including Arabic, whose grammar is very similar to Hebrew. Yup. Indeed. [Triliteral verb roots.] > But, frankly, as much as I enjoy In Nomine and do like to do some research > so I can write good stuff for it, learning another language just to add a > little verisimilitude to my prose is not something my current schedule will > allow.... What's the deal with the word "verisimilitude"? Is that the word of the week? It's popping up everywhere. Anyway, my reaction was "yea gods, no". I mean, why? Getting bar mitzvah'd? :) Don't bother. It's not that interesting. :) - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:19:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list At 11:07 PM +0100 3/23/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Emily Dresner wrote: > >> The other problem is that the holes in the system are really obvious: >> people talking about Lilim and Geasa for one, keeps coming up because >> there's little understanding, the material isn't clear, and people have >> found that, via the miracle of bad writing and being unclear and the like, >> they have this hole through which they can use to discuss this topic. So >> it comes up again and again and again. > >Hm. First you complain that the parts that generated huge number of posts >are gone, and then you complain that one of them is still here? :) It does suggest that everything should be written confusingly and unclearly, with many possible intrepretations, so that there will be a great deal of discussion... The other question in my mind is: "Is what's good for discussion on the list good for *playing the game*?" I mean, if people wanted to discuss Tethers and Roles until the heat death of the universe, then yes, it's better to not define them at all beyond how they're treated in the main book. If people want to play... Is the Liber Castellorum useful? (I mean, if it's not useful, then should it just have been Tethers From Around The World with no rules? I swear I got people saying that 'this half was good, the other half was okay' on both halves...) I wonder why I was even thinking of correcting and clarifying things in IN 2/e. Maybe I should just re-org it. No, wait, that would mean we couldn't post cheap, well-deserved shots at how horribly organized it is. Or maybe I just shouldn't even read the list or respond to people who want to know the answers for their games. - --Beth, who is just... tired. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:17:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: IN> NPOTD Sent to me from my fiance. Part of the whole "fighting spam" thing. And it's on topic, too! >From news.admin.net-abuse.email: Subject: Holy War declared on Spam Author: Pope Giovanni Paolo Fisichella XVIb1 Date: 1999/03/17 Forum: news.admin.net-abuse.email CITTA' DEL VATICANO Roma, 17 Marzo, MCMXCIX ------------------------------------ A MESSAGE to INTERNET CITIZENS FROM HIS HOLINESS Pope Giovanni Paolo Fisichella XVIb1 ------------------------------------ For immediata releasa Broders and Sisters, it has happened again, samabody has again spammed pope@vatican.va. This time "suzi-big-boobs" want I come see her teen web site, and is big lie because she no 17 at all, she definately more like 47 (well, so samabody tell me). Therefore I am declaring now Holy War on Spam. The Vatican City has drafted new regulations, effective immediately, to put cork on pork: Article I: All spammers will be excommunicated. Once excommunicated they will not be recommunicated unless they pay a recommunication fee. Article II: All spams which have travelled over many cost-shiftings to get to your disks should no longer die in your bin, this horrible carnage must stop. Instead you must assist all spams to get home again. The Vatican City has designated 'The Direct Marketing Association' as the official 'Home Of Spam' and I urge all Broders and Sisters to no more waste spam and instead to return all spam home to dma@the-dma.org, pr@the-dma.org, membership@the-dma.org, etc. (my nuns are out looking for more DMA addresses). AVE CESARE PANETTONE ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:29:15 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > It does suggest that everything should be written confusingly >and unclearly, with many possible intrepretations, so that there >will be a great deal of discussion... Isn't that basically What White Wolf does? (half tongue in cheek, half deadly serious) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:36:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> Discussion on the list > It does suggest that everything should be written confusingly > and unclearly, with many possible intrepretations, so that there > will be a great deal of discussion... No, of course not. But it strikes me as strange when you answer the questions and then point out that there isn't any more conversation on the topic. > > The other question in my mind is: "Is what's good for discussion on > the list good for *playing the game*?" Actually, bizarrely, yes. That's exactly it. And I'll explain why in one very easy step: If people are discussing the topic, then they find it interesting. If people are not discussing the topic, then they do not find it interesting. The only way to keep people around is to keep things interesting. Gamers have the attention spans of gnats. The way you can tell if things are interesting is if they are talking about it. Incessantly. Very simple. If people take your new setting and want to expand on them and share them here you've achieved: * A new topic! Woah! * Increased interest! > I mean, if people wanted > to discuss Tethers and Roles until the heat death of the universe, > then yes, it's better to not define them at all beyond how they're > treated in the main book. If people want to play... Is the Liber > Castellorum useful? It's a good book. All the Libers are good books. I've said this multiple times. But they are _just_ books of stuff. They don't _add_ anything to your universe. They don't push your boundaries anywhere. They don't spark the imagination. They're nice and easy and safe. So you get no new topics. Defining rules is a fine thing. But you have to do more then that. You have to physically add to your universe constantly to keep people interested -- and more then just places and people! And it's just not happening. > Or maybe I just shouldn't even read the list or respond to people who > want to know the answers for their games. I think you're missing the point. This List is the ultimate source of feedback -- even from me, who is just as tired as you are. The point is, there are no new topics coming up on this mailing list, and haven't for several months. The reason for this is the exact same reason as why there weren't new topics on the Amber list for _years_... because there's nothing new to talk about in the universe. It's all been done. And unless something new comes out, with all new information and new setting and new STUFF which adds some real whiz and bang to the universe, there very likely won't BE any new topics. If you just go and archive every topic there is, the list will be, in short order, dead. And the list is, theoretically, about more then answering people's questions. But I could be wrong. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:44:43 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas >>>I'm gonna get flamed for this, too. :) Honesty pays its price.<<< I don't know who will flame you. Disagree with you, perhaps... However, I don't disagree with everything you said. In essence, you are correct, there hasn't been a whole lot in terms of NEW concepts, new ideas, new backgrounds. Religion in In Nomine? Satire and biting political commentary? Yeah, I'd love to see that too. I'm not sure we have any writers who excel at that, aside from Derek Pearcy. I know that's not one of my strengths. On the other hand, a lot of the complaints (including on this list, and including from you, I believe) have been about things addressed by the Liber Books: "Not enough Songs." "Not enough spiffy artifacts and other MacGuffins." "Not enough adventure seeds." "How do Tethers work?" (How quickly we forget that Tethers were the source of numerous TFHs before the Liber Castellorum came out and answered most of those questions.) So there is a definite need for these products too. And complaining that there's been little debate about the Liber Canticorum or the Liber Castellorum seems ironic -- if there _was_ a lot of debate about these books, it would indicate they weren't well-organized or thought out, wouldn't it? And I don't think the list is "dying" just because you're less interested in it, Emily. You've been here for 3 years, it's natural you'll get a sense of "been there, done that," whereas I think the list is still pretty active and still getting a regular influx of new people. Here's my challenge to people complaining about stale ideas -- you're very good at talking about what you don't like and what you don't want to see. What DO you want? Be specific. For an even greater challenge, try to remember that some stuff you hate is exactly what a substantial number of fans want, and vice versa. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:16:40 -0600 From: Shadowstar Subject: IN> New directions, to breathe life. . . See, I see IN NOMINE in terms of a story that keeps changing with each turn of the page. Evolution in motion (that I'm a creationist makes for wonky, but that's going off-topic. . .). What I'd like to see is some -major- mondo stuff going on. And I'm not talking about the dissapointment that the Revelations cycle was. Surprise us with a few falls, few redemtions and perhaps a few destructions. Let that creative spark burn, and come up with something wholey original. Another topic that -has- come up, but alas not been fleshed out: IN NOMINE/Historical. We've seen bits and pieces, but wouldn't we want hardcore 'details'? Certainly they would not fall under 'Canon'. But they might be amusing for a read. Then there's the gaming logs. Just before I got into IN, I was in the process of falling out of Amber. I got tired of it. But then I discovered a wealth of gaming logs on the WWW. Not only did it intrigue my interests. . . But it made we want to run a game, just so I could -log- it! *grin* I certainly could go for more gaming sessions ala Holy War. . . Or heaven forbid, -more- Dark Victory. So maybe we should see more discussions of: This is how I do things in my world. How did you do it? Dunno, just my three-pence (inflation you see) Be seeing you, - - Tafka J. = shadowstar@centuryinter.net # Balseraph of Fate, Marquis of Delusions of Grandeur * http://www.best.com/~lyceum/shdwstar/in-nomine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:17:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Emily K. Dresner" Subject: Re: IN> New Material/Fresh Ideas > However, I don't disagree with everything you said. And I ranted on alot. :) > On the other hand, a lot of the complaints (including on this list, and > including from you, I believe) have been about things addressed by the > Liber Books: "Not enough Songs." "Not enough spiffy artifacts and other > MacGuffins." "Not enough adventure seeds." "How do Tethers work?" (How > quickly we forget that Tethers were the source of numerous TFHs before the > Liber Castellorum came out and answered most of those questions.) > > So there is a definite need for these products too. And complaining that > there's been little debate about the Liber Canticorum or the Liber > Castellorum seems ironic -- if there _was_ a lot of debate about these > books, it would indicate they weren't well-organized or thought out, > wouldn't it? I really like the Libers. My players really like the libers. They're good, well thought out, well editted, well written books. No one under God is going to argue that fact. But they aren't exactly inspiring, and that's a bit of the problem. > And I don't think the list is "dying" just because you're less interested > in it, Emily. You've been here for 3 years, it's natural you'll get a sense > of "been there, done that," whereas I think the list is still pretty active > and still getting a regular influx of new people. > True. Point. > Here's my challenge to people complaining about stale ideas -- you're very > good at talking about what you don't like and what you don't want to see. > What DO you want? Be specific. I had, in fact, written down a list of book topics, and some of those even survived Jo going "Lame, lame, really lame." Let me dig them up... 1. Real IN setting books on Heaven and Hell -- politics, economics, philosophy, etc. What is it like to really be a demon hanging out in Hell. H&H was sort of basic and unsatisfying, but this is where angels and demons spend most of their time. Failing that, IN Stygia and/or IN Shal-Mari. 2. The History of Hell / The History of Heaven (the Fall). 3. How To Run A War In Hell And Make Out Like You Have A Clue. (A favorite of mine.) 4. IN Renegades and Outcasts. A very popular topic. 5. IN Law: The Game and Judgment 6. A really damn good scenario book, which concentrates and focuses on that scenario. 7. I still really want a complete IN Sorcery book, CPG or no CPG, and over Jo's protests. :). (Except, of course, the bit about the fashion tips -- that has to stay in.) 8. A suggestion from elsewhere was IN Religion - a treatment of Judaism, Christianity and Islam from the POV of Heaven and Hell. 9. More Jewish Mythos, just in general and everywhere, like a splattershot. So basically it all comes down to "more world, more fleshing out of the world, and more of it". More stuff, more mysteries, more weirdness, overall more In Nomine. And as tired as I am, that's aboot as specific as I can get right now. Hopefully the list is quasi-helpful. Some of these might actually be in production. I dunno. I'm working on psychic powers, but the Vaputech keeps burning my hair and all the device does so far is go "beep". > > For an even greater challenge, try to remember that some stuff you hate is > exactly what a substantial number of fans want, and vice versa. Yup. I've worked in engineering long enough to know that. :) I have long since realized that what I want is not what everyone else wants... but that's okay. I figure, if I get 10% satisfied, then I'm doing well. But sometimes I also remember that I'm a _fan_, and as a fan I get to rattle a saber, too. *rattlerattlerattle* - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1174 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.