From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Sep 10 02:43:22 2000 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 CAA32584 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:43:21 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id CAA32648 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:39:48 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:39:48 -0500 Message-Id: <200009100739.CAA32648@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 #1814 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 Sunday, September 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1814 In this digest: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> StrippingWord-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> StrippingWord-Forces) IN> "So you've been messing with my buddies, have you?" Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> Demon of Chastity Re: IN> Demon of Chastity Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> Amusing question Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> "I've never killed anyone this way before... Re: IN> Altruism Re: IN> Demon of Chastity Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> Eli's muses Re: IN> "I've never killed anyone this way before. It's kind of neat."* Re: IN> "So you've been messing with my buddies, have you?" Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces (Re: Contest) Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces (Re: Contest) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> Amusing question Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) IN> Just forget about it Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: IN> Just forget about it Re: IN> Just forget about it Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 14:24:14 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> StrippingWord-Forces) Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Man, this grew without warning.... And it's an interesting discussion, and I agreed with most of your points. But I have to say, at about the time you started breaking down the mechanics for your proposed new system, my eyes glazed over and I skipped ahead. Your proposed changes might be worthy (or not), but they would clearly add a major level of complexity. I've already heard complaints that the Word-Forces rules presented in the GMG added too much quantification and complexity to IN. I was trying to quantify them to such an extent that GMs who want it would have some mechanics for dealing with Words, without making it _too_ complex. (You wouldn't want to see the system *I* originally wanted to use, but then, I'm one of those people who LIKES mechanics and thinks the "Mechanics are Evil!" school of RPG design should die with Post-Modernism.) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:45:55 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> StrippingWord-Forces) At 2:24 PM -0500 9/9/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: >> Man, this grew without warning.... > > >And it's an interesting discussion, and I agreed with most of your >points. But I have to say, at about the time you started breaking down >the mechanics for your proposed new system, my eyes glazed over and I >skipped ahead. *Hardly* surprising. And "proposed new system" is strong. "Half-baked rambling" is better. The point of it was more showing you could to Word Forces more tightly to the Words -- not that it would be the best way to do it. (Plus I admit I like the idea of 'reflecting' Personal Forces and Word Forces. But then, the symmetrical universe appeals to me.) >Your proposed changes might be worthy (or not), but they >would clearly add a major level of complexity. Largely they did, yeah. That being said, I don't think we can have it both ways (simple system within IN, but also tie detailed Word-capacity and ability to Word Forces) without simply adopting something like Nobilis, which I think is *too* broad for In Nomine as it's been written (not to mention an order of magnitude more powerful). So I'm agreeing with you on all points, though I'm still glad I went through the thought exercise of the system. And with refinement, it might even be a useful thing to some folks. Or not, but I had fun. >(You wouldn't want to see the system *I* originally wanted to use, >but then, I'm one of those people who LIKES mechanics and thinks the >"Mechanics are Evil!" school of RPG design should die with >Post-Modernism.) Well, actually *I* would want to see it, since I actively like good mechanics. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:02:25 -0400 From: "Charles phipps" Subject: IN> "So you've been messing with my buddies, have you?" >Yes, I know Christopher isn't the kind of guy to have fighters as >Servitors. Still, someone's got to hunt down the creeps who hunt and prey on >kids, so IMC(if I had one, that is), he's got a small organization of >trained warriors for just that purpose.) First of all I really like your guy. However I must disagree with your above statement. Christopher in my opinion is a very violent angel. He may love kites, crayon drawing, the joys of learning and the like but recall the man is a Stone by heart and his heart is made of the same substance. He may personally have a majority of servitors working as child-care lobbyists, teachers, orphanages, foster care systems, children's toy/story book writers etc. Heck he even owns substantial shares in Marc's industry.... However his Malakim and Olfalim in my opinion have their own agenda. I think it goes something like this. Mission should you choose to accept it (as if you had a choice) * Destroy every last stinking servitor of Fleurity you find * Destroy every child based Lust servitor you find. * Kill Barney and similar Nybbas demons, I'll replace them with PBS. * and those The War servitors who put guns in kids hands (Fufur he wants dead and soon and may have to kill the new Demon Prince himself if it comes down to it) Human drug dealers, child molesters, child pornographers, are not much higher on his life list. I recall the Malakim of Santa from this list need I point out and also Druiel who was "recover your childhood or else". Chris is definately on the war faction and I liken him to a young Anakin Skywalker. (just imagine Jack Llyod sitting on that throne staring down) Indeed you wonder if someday he might Fall and become a certain Children of the Corn style Demon Prince. - -Charlemagne ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 14:25:46 -0700 From: Casca Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) On Sat, 09 September 2000, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > Man, this grew without warning.... I say we chain Eric to his desk until he writes a complete and polished version of these rules. - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:29:42 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Demon of Chastity In a message dated 9/9/00 7:46:02 AM Central Daylight Time, emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: << Cairdonal Balseraph of Lust Demon of Chastity >> You're weird, Beth. (Keep it up.) Reverend Brian A. Rogers BillionSix@aol.com ICQ# 22544590 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:53:52 -0500 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Demon of Chastity From: > In a message dated 9/9/00 7:46:02 AM Central Daylight Time, > emccoy@nh.ultranet.com writes: > > << Cairdonal > Balseraph of Lust > Demon of Chastity >> > > You're weird, Beth. > (Keep it up.) Wouldn't that cause dissonance? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:35:52 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) At 2:25 PM -0700 9/9/00, Casca wrote: >On Sat, 09 September 2000, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > >> Man, this grew without warning.... > >I say we chain Eric to his desk until he writes a complete and >polished version of these rules. Mm -- I suppose I could turn it into another Pyramid article for them to ignore (rejection doesn't bother me. Spending months longer than the article's worth with no word, on the other hand....) if there was enough in it to bother. If I were going to actually try to make it legitimate mechanics, I'd probably cut one or two of the perks, and maximize the number of existing mechanics it referenced (similar to using the costs of other Forces, the Celestial Combat rules for Word Force loss, and the like). And reorganize it. Rereading it just now, I saw that a big problem it suffers from is a lack of organization, leading to the eye-glaze David referenced. I dunno -- I'd like to see what other folks propose to solve the problem. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:39:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Amusing question - --- Casca wrote: > In my campaign, Eli has decided to create modern-day Muses, in order > to better understand Nybbas and then fight him on his own ground. > There will be 7 of them, one of each choir, each with a Word related > to the little-m media or entertainment. > > Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Eli has the ability > to bestow these Words himself, thereby not needing the Seraphim > Council's approval. Let us further assume that these Words are not > already held by angels. Having Eli be able to grant Words is a serious departure from canon. However, *God* might grant that many Words if He saw merit in Eli's plan. > What would these Words be, and which choir would have each Word? [snip] > I have some ideas, but they're not set in stone, and I'd like > feedback on them before I do it in-game. My ideas are: > > Movies (and theater)-- Ofanite This is a good one. But to simplify matters, you might use the Word of Acting. > Print Media (Newspapers, Magazines, etc)-- Malakite A Cherub would be better for the Word of Print; the written word is something that they can attune to. > Cartoons (Political, Saturday Morning, and Anime) -- Mercurian The Choir choice is perfect -- how about the Word of Humor? > Radio -- Kyriotate This is the Word that I would give a Malakite, but I would broaden it to Broadcasting. Of course, the Malakite Angel of Broadcasting should be able to use his Resonance on someone whom he can perceive over broadcast media. };> > Internet -- Cherub The Net is so many things to so many people in so many places that only a Kyrio could serve that Word fully. Just my two cents. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 18:47:49 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Whistling in the Dark wrote: > I dunno -- I'd like to see what other folks propose to solve the problem. To be perfectly honest, your system appeared to be basically an "enhancement" of the existing Word-Forces rules. Now, I'm not saying that those couldn't stand to be enhanced, or that rules variants aren't a good thing. However, I suspect that people who don't like Word-Forces as a concept won't be enamored of an expansion on the idea. I think really worthwhile variants of the Word-Forces rules would entail going in a totally different direction. What direction, I don't know. But personally, I'd be more interested in seeing alternate ideas for handling Words that take an entirely different approach. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Maurice Lane Subject: Re: IN> "I've never killed anyone this way before... Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:07:10 EDTFrom: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> "I've never killed anyone this way before. It's kind of neat."* In a message dated 9/9/00 2:03:01 PM, moelane_1999@yahoo.com writes: >>Gaius >>Impudite Knight of the Black Order >>Demon of Gladiators >>{Snip} >And then, for one brief, shining moment, there was >'Fight Club'... And its copycats. >:) >Mark Good point, I suppose: I've never actually seen the film, so I'm certain about how parallel it is to the writeup*. I basically read through GURPS Imperial Rome and went on from there. :) Moegiel Kyriotate of Destiny in Service to Lightning ("You steal se-cret of Fire before Man know how to use it right. Hulk Smash.") *Yes, I'm gonna go rent the movie now. ===== In Nomine stuff: http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/innomine.html Everything else (not that there is, right now): http://www.stormloader.com/users/moelane/main.html Last updated 9/5/00 (this is usually way out of date) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Altruism - --- "William J. Keith" wrote: > Ithiel > Elohite of Lightning > Angel of Altruism Studies I like it! This guy has real potential -- especially in a campaign that includes Terkare and/or Omburo. I'll definitely use him (once I add some stats, that is; I'll post 'em when I've got 'em). As for his associations with other angels, the games theory angle would get him in good with Servitors of the Wind, too. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:04:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Demon of Chastity - --- Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Cairdonal > Balseraph of Lust > Demon of Chastity RIBLMHO }8> (Rolling In Brimstone Laughing My Horns Off) I don't even want to think about that Numinous Corpus, though. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:02:57 -0700 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) At 06:47 PM 9/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >To be perfectly honest, your system appeared to be basically an >"enhancement" of the existing Word-Forces rules. Now, I'm not saying >that those couldn't stand to be enhanced, or that rules variants aren't >a good thing. However, I suspect that people who don't like Word-Forces >as a concept won't be enamored of an expansion on the idea. I think >really worthwhile variants of the Word-Forces rules would entail going >in a totally different direction. What direction, I don't know. But >personally, I'd be more interested in seeing alternate ideas for >handling Words that take an entirely different approach. My issue is, I never even understood why Word Forces were brought in at all. The most simple mechanic for simulating the direct power of a Word, to me at least, is additional Rites. Word-Rites- those Rites associated with your Word- would be available for 20 character points each, first one free with your Word. (As an additional cost, I'd have an additional rule that existing Rites be used, 20 per new Rite sought, with the GM having option to substitute non-Rite activities which promote the Word.) Each Word-Rite would also act as a sort of Force... but -only- for considerations of holding Essence. A Superior cannot strip -your- Word-Rite from you, ever. I also considered the following suggestion: -if- you manage to grant one of your Word-Rites to another Celestial, each time they use the Rite, they gain an Essence... and YOU gain an Essence. (I'm leery of this one, partly because its mechanics re: NPC use of those Rites are very tricky, and mostly because it would encourage massive Rite-trading- my personal term is 'Rite-incest'- in player groups.) Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of GMG around here to check against existing mechanics, so I can't do more than present this for comments. Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:11:58 -0700 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Eli's muses At 01:43 AM 9/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >>In my campaign, Eli has decided to create modern-day Muses, in order to >better understand Nybbas and >then fight him on his own ground. There will >be 7 of them, one of each choir, each with a Word related to the >little-m >media or entertainment. The original muses were 9; four related to poetry, one to music, two to acting, one to history and one to astronomy. Although their function was most popularly known as patrons of the arts and sciences, their original function was as keepers of memory- in other words, passing stories and knowledge from one generation to the next. >I would say Modern Muses would be.... > >1. Movies-Serendipity from Dogma but much television > >2. Video- Recorded perfromance > >3. Live Perfomance-The old ways still work > >4. Radio- Nuff said > >5. Printed Word- Magazines, newspapers, pamplets > >6. Internet- Creativity with the net not Orc's all round net > >7. Transmissions: Phones to Satelite Feed I think you really -are- concentrating more on the Media and much less on the -message-, which is what Eli (IMO) would promote. If we're going for 7, I would break it down into Music, Imagery, Sculpture, Drama, Comedy, History and Teaching. My suggestions, broken down by choir, for the above: Seraph - Teaching Cherub - Sculpture Ofanite - Music Elohite - History Malakite - Drama Kyriotate - Imagery Mercurian - Comedy Comments? Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:15:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> "I've never killed anyone this way before. It's kind of neat."* - --- Maurice Lane wrote: > Gaius > Impudite Knight of the Black Order > Demon of Gladiators As excellent a piece of writing as I have come to expect from you. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> "So you've been messing with my buddies, have you?" - --- Aaron Medwin wrote: > Arniel > Cherub of Children Like it, like it! A well though-out story is always good on an NPC (this would also make a great background for a PC -- would that more players came up with stuff like this!). As for the combat thing, I can't see any Superior not having any Servitors geared for combat -- there's a War on, after all, and each side is preparing the the other to storm their gates. It's merely a question of _how many_ fighters a given Superior has and how highly they are esteemed in that organization. Christopher would have few fighters and he probably doesn't promote them very often. ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:23:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Walton Subject: Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces (Re: Contest) - --- Kris Overstreet wrote: > *sigh* This is why I -detest- the very concept of Word Forces. They > cause > more mechanical headaches than they cure, IMHO. OTOH, they provide a great way to quantify how powerful an individual Word is. They also provide game mechanics on the difference in power level between the Word-bound and Wordless grunts (other than extra Rites, Attunements and Forces, that is). ===== Michael Walton, #9805-068 "God, protect me from my friends - -- my enemies I can handle." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:13:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces (Re: Contest) On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Michael Walton wrote: > --- Kris Overstreet wrote: > > *sigh* This is why I -detest- the very concept of Word Forces. They > > cause > > more mechanical headaches than they cure, IMHO. > > OTOH, they provide a great way to quantify how powerful an individual > Word is. They also provide game mechanics on the difference in power > level between the Word-bound and Wordless grunts (other than extra > Rites, Attunements and Forces, that is). I agree totally - I think Word Forces are a simple, easy-to-use element that make Word-Bound more powerful than non-Word-Bound, in a sane and elegant manner. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! ::: Conspiracy religions CONvert, the Subgenius SUBverts! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 20:14:04 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Kris Overstreet wrote: > The most simple mechanic for simulating the direct power of a Word, to > me at least, is additional Rites. Sure, that's the simplest mechanic, but Words do more than that. > Word-Rites- those Rites associated with your Word- would be available for> 20 character points each, 20!? > Each Word-Rite would also act as a sort of Force... but -only- for > considerations of holding Essence. A Superior cannot strip -your- Word-Rite> from you, ever. That's pretty much the way Word-Forces work. It sounds like you just want to use nearly identical mechanics, but call them "Word-Rites" instead of "Word-Forces." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 20:17:01 -0700 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) At 08:14 PM 9/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >Kris Overstreet wrote: >> Word-Rites- those Rites associated with your Word- would be available for> 20 character points each, > >20!? 15 for the privledge of 1 extra Essence holding, plus 5 for the Rite. And remember, the first one -is- free. >That's pretty much the way Word-Forces work. It sounds like you just >want to use nearly identical mechanics, but call them "Word-Rites" >instead of "Word-Forces." Close enough, except the concept of a 'Force' related to the Word is confusing. Forces can be stripped; components of a Word cannot. Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 20:44:11 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Kris Overstreet wrote: > 15 for the privledge of 1 extra Essence holding, plus 5 for the Rite. And> remember, the first one -is- free. This is way overpriced, since you're basically talking about a Force with limitations (<10 pts) plus an extra Rite (3 pts). > Close enough, except the concept of a 'Force' related to the Word is > confusing. Forces can be stripped; components of a Word cannot. But a celestial's connection to his Word can be reduced. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:35:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Rev. Pee Kitty" Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, David Edelstein wrote: > Kris Overstreet wrote: > > 15 for the privledge of 1 extra Essence holding, plus 5 for the Rite. And> remember, the first one -is- free. > > This is way overpriced, since you're basically talking about a Force > with limitations (<10 pts) plus an extra Rite (3 pts). What he said. > > Close enough, except the concept of a 'Force' related to the Word is > > confusing. Forces can be stripped; components of a Word cannot. > > But a celestial's connection to his Word can be reduced. Again, what he said. Adding something like "Word Rites" is no different than adding "Word Forces" to the system... you're just taking a commonly known and understood concept, and prepending "Word" to it. The difference here is that "Word Forces" act like Forces, for the most part. But your "Word Rites" sure don't act like Rites... you get a Rite, but then this "Rite" can somehow hold Essence? Rites don't hold Essence; they get you Essence, which you hold in your Forces. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian, Q4B4L! Meow! "OH you otten nichel I otten a currency from ten cent of dollar / I grad AT otten AT sap ya but I not otten time" -- (Beginning of Devo's "Wiggly World", run through Babelfish twice) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 18:53:37 -0700 From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Amusing question On Sat, 09 September 2000, Michael Walton wrote: > > Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Eli has the ability > > Having Eli be able to grant Words is a serious departure from canon. Hence my use of the phrase "Let us assume for the sake of discussion." I know this is a departure from canon. I don't feel especially beholden to adhere to canon in my games. > However, *God* might grant that many Words if He saw merit in Eli's > plan. Seeing as how Eli -is- God (or at least a hypostasis thereof) in my game.. - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 20:53:09 -0700 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) At 08:44 PM 9/9/00 -0500, you wrote: >Kris Overstreet wrote: >> 15 for the privledge of 1 extra Essence holding, plus 5 for the Rite. And> remember, the first one -is- free. > >This is way overpriced, since you're basically talking about a Force >with limitations (<10 pts) plus an extra Rite (3 pts). Hm. Was going by memory, which was 16 for a Force (4X 4 pts per attribute raised) plus Rite (5 pts). >> Close enough, except the concept of a 'Force' related to the Word is >> confusing. Forces can be stripped; components of a Word cannot. > >But a celestial's connection to his Word can be reduced. I missed that somewhere: in the GMG, or part of the core book? Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 21:19:43 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) Kris Overstreet wrote: > Hm. Was going by memory, which was 16 for a Force (4X 4 pts per attribute> raised) plus Rite (5 pts). The base cost for a Force is 10 points. Attributes cost 3 points each, so if the GM makes characters gain new Forces only through attribute increases, the cost would be 12 points. Rites, canonically, don't cost points but are merely awarded at the Superior's/GM's discretion. However, in a few places options to purchase extra Rites at character creation have been mentioned, and the suggested cost is 3 points. > I missed that somewhere: in the GMG, or part of the core book? In the GMG, since that's where Word-Forces are first mentioned canonically. - -David ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 19:18:43 -0700 From: Casca Subject: IN> Just forget about it On Sat, 09 September 2000, Kris Overstreet wrote: > The original muses were 9; four related to poetry, one to music, two to > acting, one to history and one to astronomy. Although their function was > most popularly known as patrons of the arts and sciences, their original > function was as keepers of memory- in other words, passing stories and > knowledge from one generation to the next. *sigh* I know this. I didn't ask for a history lesson. I perfectly well what the Muses were, and so does Eli. Further, I didn't ask to be told that I wasn't following canon, as someone else assumed. I bloody well knew THIS, too. > Comments? Why do people assume that the moment someone deviates from canon, they're wrong? That they need to be immediately told, as if no sane person would ever want to deviate from the Sacred and Holy Writ That Is In Nomine Canon? As if, by pointing that out, I would say "Gee, I didn't realize I was exercising my own creativity as a GM to make my game world exciting and different! I'll stop at once, and from now on hew to the party line!" Why do people assume that I'm somehow ignorant because I don't mention, in excruciatin detail, how I know all this stuff already and I'm looking for a different approach to an old concept? Why do the Servitors of Nitpicking descend like vultures the moment an apparent inconsistency crops up, rather than saying "Wow, that doesn't seem to make sense. I wonder what he/she was thinking? Perhaps there's a good reason for it!" Fine. Just forget the whole damn thing, if you wouldn't mind. I'll figure it out myself. Please direct ALL responses to my private email address, so as to keep our flames and dirty laundry off the list. Thank you. - -- Casca "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 _______________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:23:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Gant Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Kris Overstreet wrote: > I also considered the following suggestion: -if- you manage to grant one of > your Word-Rites to another Celestial, each time they use the Rite, they > gain an Essence... and YOU gain an Essence. (I'm leery of this one, partly > because its mechanics re: NPC use of those Rites are very tricky, and > mostly because it would encourage massive Rite-trading- my personal term is > 'Rite-incest'- in player groups.) I played around with this in my first (and only long-term) campaign, because I allowed my players to gain Words. I allowed the character's rite to generate Essence for the angel who performs it and the Word-bound who granted it, just like you suggested. I also made it clear that any angel with the rite who *damaged* the Word would (at best) strip Essence from the Word-bound and (at worst) inflict soul damage. They were *extremely* careful with who they granted their rites to, as a result. They also got a better feel for why their Archangels were so zealous and careful about *their* Words... Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4656/ The Returners Final Fantasy Role-Playing Game Site: http://returners.simplenet.com/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:58:56 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) At 6:47 PM -0500 9/9/00, David Edelstein wrote: >Whistling in the Dark wrote: >> I dunno -- I'd like to see what other folks propose to solve the problem. > > >To be perfectly honest, your system appeared to be basically an >"enhancement" of the existing Word-Forces rules. That's because it was. >However, I suspect that people who don't like Word-Forces as a >concept won't be enamored of an expansion on the idea. As stated, I'd like to see how people handled what I saw as the deficiencies of the current system. I guess I don't care how they get there. Though I can accept what you're saying. >I think really worthwhile variants of the Word-Forces rules would >entail going in a totally different direction. What direction, I >don't know. But personally, I'd be more interested in seeing >alternate ideas for handling Words that take an entirely different >approach. Well, so would I. But I'm not hugely into writing something else mechanics-wise on the subject. Really, I'd like to explore the topic that prompted the system more than I'd want to debate the system, per se. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:05:50 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Just forget about it At 7:18 PM -0700 9/9/00, Casca wrote: > >Fine. > >Just forget the whole damn thing, if you wouldn't mind. I'll figure >it out myself. > >Please direct ALL responses to my private email address, so as to >keep our flames and dirty laundry off the list. > >Thank you. > >-- Casca > Casca? Y'okay? I didn't think (except maybe from Kris) the reaction was this bad -- just commentary around your idea. But you don't seem sure about it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:35:14 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Just forget about it My apologies -- that was meant to be private, as Casca requested. - -- Eric Alfred Burns - Habbalite of Belaboring the Point ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 06:55:13 GMT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) >From: Richard Gant >>(I'm leery of this one, partly > > because its mechanics re: NPC use of those Rites are very tricky, and > > mostly because it would encourage massive Rite-trading- my personal term >is > > 'Rite-incest'- in player groups.) > So you make the rites of 'lesser' word-bound much more difficult and demanding than those of superiors :) jo _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:05:30 +1000 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Casca" Whistling in the Dark wrote: > > > Man, this grew without warning.... > > I say we chain Eric to his desk until he writes a complete and polished version of these rules. Nope, chains wont work, he could escape...we better nail him there. I too want to see a great bug shiny polished set of these rules' Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:35:47 -0600 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: Concepts and Mechanics of Word Forces (Re: IN> Stripping Word-Forces) I decided I'd add an idea I had while doing laundry on how to run Words. A Word just allows a celestial to purchase Attunements and Rites relating to their words. The cost is 10 and 3 points respectively. The individual can attune someone to their Word, granting Rites and Attunements to them. To be attuned to a sub-Superior Word a celestial needs the permision of their Superior, unless their an Outcast/Renegade. Attaining a Word comes with a Dissonance condition, something relating to working against the Word. An Outcast/Renegade attuned to the Word may gain the Dissonance condition (depending on GM friendliness). Dissonance gained from violating ones Word has to burn by essence expenditure (ie 10 essence lost imediatly upon gaining the Dissonance), converted directly into 5 soul hits or dumped onto a Servitor who is bound to the Dissonance condition (thus a nice reward from a DP is an actual Servitor of one's own, a Dissonance drop). Any being attuned to a Word who violates the Dissonance condition inflicts Dissonance on the Word bound, which is treated as Dissonance from the Word. Thus being bound to a Dissonance condition is really just being a Dissonance-dump for the Word bound, and when ever one generates Dissonance for the Word bound it bouncese back to the generator. If a Word loosen domain over something (ie if Flowers stopped being a symbol of peace) then all Attunements/Rites relating to that aspect of the concept vanish. Only when a Word has absolutely no meaning (not just no possible Attunements/Rites, but results in totally blank stares) does a Word bound die. This means that Words shrink to virtual uselessness and leave the holder pathetic shells but still existing. Archangels tend to perform mercy deaths at this point, Demon Princes wait until their amusement and annoyance runs out. Conversly when the Word gains domain over something Attuments/Rites become available. So Celestial have a motive to not just protect and promote but also expand their Word. Celestials performing granted Rites generate an essence for themselves and the Word bound, if the Word bound can't hold this essence they get to keep it. They still can't generate any more on their own, but Essence from a Word is more compact. Multi-Essence Rites cost more character points to generate in the first place (4pts per Essence involved) and need to be more complicated. Every 100 times a mortal performs the equivellent action of a Rite (even if they do have the Rite) it generates the appropriate essence for the Word bound as if the Rite was performed by a Celestial. Thus narrow Words like, "Stale Bong Water" can only generate essence from lazier than average bong owners, and thus get less Essence a day. For 10 essence a Word bound can perform an Attunement like effect within their Word. Additional Essence costs may be applied by the GM as they see fit, the 10 essence is to color the Symphony with their Word. Word strength can probably be best measured in an Essence flow, like a Tethers, how much essence the character gets a day. I think I'll probably go over these ideas and put them into a more coherent and codified form and put them up on my webpage, when I get around to putting that back up, but comments on this very rough draft are appreciated. Keep in mind this was written as I sit waiting for the damned drier to get done (finally ethernet connections in the laundry rooms!). Timothy, Angel of Rambling Ofanite of Creation ArchRival of Mathus ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1814 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.