From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Dec 16 22:10:30 1997 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 WAA29284 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:10:29 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id WAA07060 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:10 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:10 -0600 Message-Id: <199712170402.WAA07060@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 #520 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, December 16 1997 Volume 01 : Number 520 In this digest: Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) Re: IN> Superior Pickup lines Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions IN> An apology and question Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) Re: IN> I need advice and answers Re: IN> PK's Combat Rules (trying AGAIN) Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #517 Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Re: IN> One last time... IN> capturing an angel Re: IN> capturing an angel Re: IN> I need advice and answers Re: IN> One last time... IN> Rules Systems are Customizable... Re: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Body hits, stats and corresponding skills (was: Re: IN> One last time...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:28:52 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) > In terms of skill replacement, I don't think anything beats the > Corporeal Song of Tongues. Why bother picking up several different > languages when you have that? Because it can be found out easily. Try using it in a mixed group, and see how long it is before somebody notices *everybody* understands you. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:28:51 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Superior Pickup lines > Who are these people? They are minor Superiors, from various suppliments. > >Litheroy: You show me yours, I'll show you mine. Archangel of Revelation > >Zadkiel: Just put this on, and we can proceed. Archangel of Protection > >Mammon: Do you have any friends? The more the merrier! Demon Prince of Greed Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:28:51 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions > I was going to post a self-righteous claim that I, at least, would > never do such a thing, until I realised that I had on a number of > occasions. Interestingly, I've also penalised Corporeal Forces for > some of my characters, but never have I penalised Celestial Forces. > Why is this, I wonder? And the answer is, because their resonance > depends on it. Oh, fine. Now they tell me... (I'm playing a Kyriotate of War with 2 Celestial Forces. Lets just say finding new hosts is a pain...) Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:28:51 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) > > Interesting... I almost buy Songs as an afterthought. Skills > > are _much_ more reliable (they are based on attributes, not forces) > > and usually less noisy. I almost always take at least two songs > > though (Healing is a good 'un!) > > Two words: Numinous Corpus, Baby. Too noisy, too obvious, and leave very *strange* wounds on dead bodies. IMO, good only if you are a Kyrio/Shedim - then, you can't be sure your vessel is carrying a weapon, or is even capable of it. And if you have a problem with carrying weapons all the time, take the +4 modifier Summonable for 1 Essence. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:28:51 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions > > That is not correct. The dice pool penalties for successive levels of > > damage are more severe for mortals than for vampires. > > > Not unless the vampire is frenzying, in which case they don't take > any wound-penalties. It's the healing times that are different. The > Health Level track is the same for everyone who doesn't have the > Huge Size merit, or isn't some monstrosity from the Umbra. I he was refering to the fact that vampires have more dice than humans do, and so by comparison, are affected less. A vampire with an average stat of 3 and an average skill of 2 is going to be less affected by a -1 die than a human with an average stat of 2 and an average skill of 1. The vampire looses 20% of dice for the average roll, while the human looses 33%. > For 24 points worth of Discord, a Vampire gets 10 points worth of > Demonic abilities, can control Essence expenditure, and can learn > Songs and attunements. > > And since eternal life is counterbalanced by soul death in the event > of your vessel ever getting fried (quite literally, if someone > leaves the window open), it really is quite a bad career move. Well, it isn't exactly what they planned for. A vampire is (usually, anyway) a failed mummy. The discord is there to keep the forces from disintigrating. But yes, I think vampires are underpowered. Some ways to fix this: 1) Give all vampires the Vampiric Kiss attunement automatically, in addition to the 10 points for another attunement. 2) Give all vampires a sixth force. 3) Give vampires the points for their discord, possibly instead of the 10 points they are given. 4) Leave the average vampire the way it is, and apply 1-3 to PC vampires. Personally, I am changing a lot of things in In Nomine anyway, so vampires will be different anyway. Basically, while mummies need to be created by a demon, and use several forces from Abbadon (or wherever the forces are being drawn from), vampires are self-perpetuating. They are less powerful, but require less work and less forces from Hell to create - in some cases, they don't require any at all. This has made them a minor force in their own right, and one that is no longer wholly under the control of Hell... Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com "It's the eternal question, really; to be a slave in Heaven, or a star in Hell. But sometimes Hell doesn't look like Hell. On a good day, it can look like LA." - Playing God ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:44:31 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: IN> An apology and question To the list, You know, I realized that I ended up doing just what I said I wouldn't; I got sucked into an argument instead of a discussion and ended up venting aggression with Kris on the list...something I'm sure none of you really cared to see. Sorry about that. I should have realized that we were getting nowhere sooner and ended the 'conversation'. So, if I can ask without starting another feud , what do you think of my idea? In case my post got eaten *again*, I'll summarize. I've been thinking of changing the "to hit" roll to (2 x Corp.Forces) + Fighting instead of Strength + Fighting. THat way, Agility enters into it more (since 2xCF is normally the average of Str & Ag). This will make autosuccess and overflow a bit harder to reach (since it's easier to get Str 12 than to get CF 6). I've also thought of changing the damage bonus rules (+1 for Str/9+, +1 for Fighting/5+) to a simpler rule: Add half your Str, rounded down. This gives higher CDs, but with autosuccess and "overflow" being much less common, the results tend to be similar. Please don't reply if all you're going to say is, "The system isn't broke - don't fix it." I don't agree. But please, please do reply if you think I could change something to improve it. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! The Devil went down / to Newport town He brought his red surfboard / to race against the Lord It was totally rocking... totally rocking... "The Devil Went Down to Newport", Mono Puff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:55:29 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Thomas Davidson wrote: > > From: Jason Corley > > > > Two words: Numinous Corpus, Baby. > > > > Ummm... but that's three words. :-) > I'm a heavy tipper. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:00:07 -0500 From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> I need advice and answers At 12:59 -0500 12/16/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: >He's a Balseraph of Malphas if I've ever heard of one. Yikes. ;-) Heehee...now you're giving me ideas... >Sheesh. Don't *even* get me started on Pat Robertson. :) I just finished a ten page paper on him for my "Fundamentalism and Politics" class. The man is creepy. I just want to figure out why he hates MSG so much...:) SeanMike - -- Sean Michael Whipkey, smw4s@virginia.edu Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Publications Div. 804/924-4185 (or -4188) voicenet, 804/982-5536 fax http://www.virginia.edu/~cpserv/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:15:17 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> PK's Combat Rules (trying AGAIN) Okay, I'm hoping not to get into a flaming match here. Seeing the list, well, I'm wearing my asbestos underwear. My group is a group of Amber gamers. We're all avid GURPS/Shadowrun/AD&D people as well, but we're attracted to Amber because of it's flow. Combat in that game is very very fast, and cinematic. Most have become rabid IN converts because the game is intellectual crack, and I'm spreading the drug. For the most part, the rules are very nice and solid. I will actually defer to the rulebook on all sorts of stuff. But the problem comes in on combat. The problem is that there is too much crap to figure out when rolling dice, and because my game is extremely fast moving and dice light, this causes combat to really bog down. I am working on making this an easier system, for me, for my players, and for my lagging sanity that isn't taken over my angst ridden demons. I just haven't had time and it won't come out until (early projection) Early February. My #1 complaint with any system like this that jerks around the combat rules are those that add MORE modifiers and make things MORE complex. This just bogs down gameplay, and overall, my story. Since my story and the happiness of my players is far more important then the rules, this is almost totally unuseable to me, unfortunately. If you really want to help rewrite the combat rules - and I invite anyone to really do it before I get to it, then I say, you want to toss out all your modifiers, all your extra rolls, all your mathematics. Slim down and speed up the system. Make it a simple intuitive thing. This, with the agility modifiers and such is entirely the WRONG direction to go, no matter how many arguments there are for realism. (Realism? In In Nomine? These are angels and demons!) So let's work on making the system smoother and easier to play. Let's take out the hundreds of modifiers and skill checks, and integrate the combat system into the storyline and ultimately into the game. That's my ultimate goal. - - Em, who is just tired ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:18:32 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> New Batch of History Stuff > So, for instance, ancient Egypt was certainly patriarchal -- there were > only three or four ruling queens in all its history, and one of them > always showed up in the carvings wearing the standard rope-like > pharaonic beard -- but Isis and Hathor and Bast were very important and > well-beloved goddesses, priestesses were powerful people, women owned > property and ran businesses, and while a man inherited his job from his > father, he inherited his property from his mother, etc. Hatshepsut, daughter of Thuthmosis II, elder sister and co-regent of Thuthmosis III. She was trying to establish a matriarchial hierarchy with her daughter, but darling Menkheprerre Thuthmosis III would have none of this. At least she got a big tomb. Other then Ai and Nefertiti, women as Regent has been pretty scarse in Egyptian history, but women weren't of the "not seen and not heard" variety. They were lesser then men, but they were better off then many of their contemporaries. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:19:24 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >>How much control do they have over their Vessel? Does it affect them? > >I think it may depend on the vessel's creator. Servitors of Andrealphus >probably have complete control over certain bits of anatomy -- and >may have extra muscle-groups for more, ah, precise control! Elohim >probably have everything under totally conscious control. Habbies >may not care. > >Kyrios and Shedim are probably the most likely to be affected by >their host's responses. Very cool. >I guess, just how much seperation is there between a celestial and her Vessel? >Is it a body, like "their" body, or one their Superior has loaned them, to > tool around in for a while? > >I'd generally say, a little of both... And things may depend on >the Superior who crafted the vessel in the first place. > >("Okay, Malakite, you're getting so stuck up about how humans >do things in the heat of the moment. You're going to need to have >a lesson. Your vessel's hormones are no longer under your conscious >control until you learn biofeedback." > >"My Elohite, you aren't doing very well with your vessel so >rambunctious. Here, let me adjust things a little.") Very, very cool. - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "Amidst my scarcely-strifled groans, Amidst my moaning deep, I heard a voice, "Wake! Mr. Jones, You're screaming in your sleep!" -Lewis Carrol (from "Horrors"-1850) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:48:05 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions Kevin Walsh writes: >> >> If you don't see practical play problems with this, I do. It's bad enough >> 2/3rds of the characters I see have 2 EthForces so they can boost one or the >> other category. It seems to me this system would guarantee all players take >> 4 CorpForces or get killed in their first fight. >> >*mutters* > >I was going to post a self-righteous claim that I, at least, would never >do such a thing, until I realised that I had on a number of occasions. Me, I've only penalized Eth Forces ONCE, that's was in Redneck's DVPBEM, ironically. :) Why? Usually I play soldiers when I'm a player because I doubt I'd be very able to see things from a Celestial's point of view. But, I'm playing a demon in DVPBEM. I lowered his Eth forces because I didn't think that I, as human, could possible role-play that high an Intelligence. I could do 4, but 6? I don't think so. I didn't want a lowered Int and out of proportion Precision (snap-shot from hell) so I went with the two Eth forces. In a way, it only makes sense to me that people would sacrifice Eth forces for a higher Corp or Cele. I mean, if a Superior hasn't designed a celestial being to need to play around in the Dreamlands and they can function pretty well with a human intelligence brain, why not pump up their Corp or Eth? But, me, I sacrificed Eth forces for the sake of role-playing. I've only made one celestial player character so far, the rest have been all soldiers. :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "Amidst my scarcely-strifled groans, Amidst my moaning deep, I heard a voice, "Wake! Mr. Jones, You're screaming in your sleep!" -Lewis Carrol (from "Horrors"-1850) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:15:44 -0600 From: rbeall@fdldotnet.com (Grim88) Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #517 >>Litheroy: You show me yours, I'll show you mine. >>Zadkiel: Just put this on, and we can proceed. >>Mammon: Do you have any friends? The more the merrier! > >Who are these people? Revelation, Protection, and Greed. From The GM Screen, Heaven and Hell(2) respectivly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:50:13 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Corley Subject: Re: IN> Songs (Other Vessel Questions) On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Nathaniel Eliot wrote: > > > > Two words: Numinous Corpus, Baby. > > Too noisy, too obvious, and leave very *strange* wounds on dead > bodies. But it's so -cool-! Jason some things we plot and invent and cook up. others are works of poetry. of inspiration ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:54:39 EST From: "Perry M. Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions > fillip in here.> > > One can posit that it's simply easier to pattern vessels >after a working design (i.e. humans and animals). A celestial is >a complex being and it probably would take a lot more time and >energy to make non-standard vessels. Add to that the fact that >neither side really wants to trumpet their presence (the fact that >they haven't done something this easy is ample evidence that they >don't want to) then very 'realistic' vessels make a lot of sense. Cool, thanks, John. I guess I really should have just asked the IN Canon Crew. Seems that we've gotten back to Combat, Strength and Damage... funny, that. :) Why I do feel so much like a Servitor of the Wind? :) - -Perry Perry M. Lloyd "Amidst my scarcely-strifled groans, Amidst my moaning deep, I heard a voice, "Wake! Mr. Jones, You're screaming in your sleep!" -Lewis Carrol (from "Horrors"-1850) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:59:55 -0600 (CST) From: redneck@txdirect.net (Redneck Gaijin) Subject: Re: IN> One last time... > >To everyone on the list... > > Don't worry. After this, one of two things will happen. (1) RG and I >will stop arguing and start talking sensibly about the subject matter, or >(2) RG and I will stop arguing because I stop replying. Okay, I'll respond to this and the 'Apology' post at the same time. >> Um, could you please make up your mind? Are you bothered by autosuccess >>or not? > >I've always had my mind made up. I'm not bothered by autosuccess. > >I am bothered by a system that REQUIRES autosuccess to do good damage. Thank you. >> >Right now, if I build a character that does the aforementioned +4 damage, >> >that means that EVERY SINGLE TURN I will do 5-10 points of damage, minus >> >however much my opponent dodges. I never do 0 damage, because I never >> >miss, even though my Agility is 2 and my Precision is 1. Except for the >> >rare (VERY rare) turns my opponent Dodges with a high enough CD, I always >> >hit him. Why am I so good, just because I have a high Str? THat's silly. >> >> You keep making this complaint, and keep forwarding a proposal that makes >> the damage even more outlandish. > >Hello? Look, I'm quite honestly getting rather sick of this. You obviously >do NOT understand and are not TRYING to understand anything I'm saying. >You have not read or understood my rules suggestion, BUT YOU COMMENT >ANYWAYS! > >Do the damn math. > >Even with a Strength of 12 (TWELVE, the HIGHEST it can go), your total >damage bonus would be +3 (THREE). That is less than +4. And unless you >sank SIX forces into Corporeal, it is MORE difficult to reach overflow, >because 2xCorpForces is going to be less than Strength 12. > >So will you please explain just what the hell you're talking about? Please >feel free to actually re-read what I said first. Simple. A Str12 does Power +6 in bare-handed combat. A Str2 does Power +1. Bare fists, without claws, acid, what-not, have a Power of -3. The Str12 person would have a net bonus of +3 to Power- about the same as a mid-size pistol. The Str2 person would have a net penalty of -2. > >> >Agility and Precision govern control and coordination of your body. >> >Strength governs...well, strength. Of these three attributes, which one >> >has the *least* to do with the accuracy and speed of your punches? >> >> Agility. > > > >And you don't see this as a problem. > >Fine. Then continue using the old system. As I've already said, your >perspective is so.....um, different....from mine that it's obvious you >won't like a darn thing about it. > >Because it operates under the assumption that Agility governs the body's >agilty, and that Strength governs the body's strength. Agility governs one's speed and reflexes- it's important for dodging, running, jumping. Strength is a combination of raw power, control, and coordination- it's a much more all-inclusive Corporeal characteristic than Agility. (Precision, BTW, governs tasks which require a degree of concentration.) Given these definitions, I have no problem at all basing Fighting/Martial Arts on Strength alone. >> Raw strength can only do so much to boost damage- not just from a reality >> perspective, but from a gameplay perspective. If you give a +1 for every two >> points of Strength a character has, pretty quick you've got strong >> Celestials who do more damage with bare fists than with a revolver. > >I've already got that, actually. I'm not doing anything the system isn't >ALREADY doing...I'm just doing it in a more sensible way. > >Sample IN CHaracter >CORP F: 4 >Strength 12 >Agility 6 >Fighting/6 > >ROLL TO HIT: Automatic >DAMAGE: CD + 5 Correction: isn't it CD + 7? >Same character, my rules >ROLL TO HIT: Automatic >DAMAGE: CD + 5 > >At the highest possible level, the results are the same. At a more >reasonable level.... well, let's see... > >Sample IN Character >CORP F: 3 >Strength 9 >Agility 3 >Fighting/5 > >ROLL TO HIT: Automatic >DAMAGE: CD + 1 CD + 3? >Same character, my rules >ROLL TO HIT: 11 >DAMAGE: CD + 1 > >> Pretty quick, you've got a radical game imbalance whenever you send >> different leveled characters in battle. > >Oh yeah...I can definitely see how my system is so much more overpowering >than the existing one. My ghod...I simply must cut back all these insane >bonuses! > >See what I mean? You haven't bothered to figure anything out for yourself. >You haven't drafted up any samples and LOOKED at the results. You just >assumed. This, more than anything, is what annoys me. I did my own math and compared. My objections are not with the high end of the scale, but the middle and low ends, which bite it big time from your proposal. Characters who are -already- at a severe disadvantage due to low Strength will have another level of inequity between them and high-Str characters. Not only will they not recieve an appreciable boost to their chances of hitting a high-Str player, they do -even less- damage to that someone than that high-Str player does to them. > So, if I can ask without starting another feud , what do you think of >my idea? In case my post got eaten *again*, I'll summarize. I've been >thinking of changing the "to hit" roll to (2 x Corp.Forces) + Fighting >instead of Strength + Fighting. THat way, Agility enters into it more >(since 2xCF is normally the average of Str & Ag). This will make >autosuccess and overflow a bit harder to reach (since it's easier to get >Str 12 than to get CF 6). > I've also thought of changing the damage bonus rules (+1 for Str/9+, +1 >for Fighting/5+) to a simpler rule: Add half your Str, rounded down. This >gives higher CDs, but with autosuccess and "overflow" being much less >common, the results tend to be similar. > Please don't reply if all you're going to say is, "The system isn't >broke - don't fix it." I don't agree. But please, please do reply if you >think I could change something to improve it. The system -is- broke, but IMHO (as I have said many times) the part you're fixing isn't what's broke. Your 'fix' adds complexity, adds inequity, weights combat towards a characteristic which IMHO has little influence on hand-to-hand brawling, and as you say, produces similar results. I'm rethinking the combat system I use, but it will be based on STR + FIGHT. It will not allow automatic success on any but the simplest of tasks. It will provide only modest, if any, bonuses for super-strength. It will have a more sensible and easy to understand weapons system. And most importantly, it will be as simple as I can possibly make it. Redneck (I'm done now) Kris Overstreet, will write for food... | "It's Christmas in Heaven, http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck | there's great shows on TV; c/o White Lightning Productions | the Sound of Music twice an hour http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ | and Jaws I, II and III." Webmaster for Antarctic Press | --- A Nybbas Christmas http://www.antarctic-press.com/ | ***QUESTION EVERYTHING*** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:28:09 +0100 From: d.ranzato@bpa.vnu.com Subject: IN> capturing an angel Hello, I am a GM in the Netherlands (so excuse me if I donīt type correct English) and I have a question about how to capture an angel (or demon).< In my campaign a small group of vampires has captured one of the PCīs (a mercurian of Jean) who fell into a trap setup for him. He was beaten unconscious by four zombies, and then with the a song "teleported" to the lair of the vampires, where he was chained to a wall. Now is my problem, how I can keep him imprisoned. I mean, when he wakes up, he can just "go celestial" and escape. So, is there a way you can capture and imprison an angel (he has no dissonance (yet) so i canīt use Dissonance Binding on him). Any suggestions or ideas are welcomed. Donato Ranzato Angel of frustrated GMīs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1986 17:38:14 -0000 From: "Derek Colanduno" Subject: Re: IN> capturing an angel >how I can keep him imprisoned. I mean, when he wakes up, he can just "go >celestial" and escape. Big problem isn't it... Angels are the next best thing to God, and capturing one isn't an easy task... >So, is there a way you can capture and imprison an angel (he has no >dissonance (yet) so i canīt use Dissonance Binding on him). Any >suggestions or ideas are welcomed. Well, being the GM you are the God of your own universe. Create some special 'shakels' that bind Celestials and do not allow them to use their Songs or change forms while they are bound. Maybe an artifact that the Vampires obtained from... *somewhere*. You may want to make sure that they are one shot items so when the players finally free the Angel, the shakels break or something along those lines... You don't really want players to run around with the shakels of doom do you? ;) Derek Colanduno ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:54:30 -0500 From: "Joel Mathis" Subject: Re: IN> I need advice and answers Highway Star wrote: > At 12:59 -0500 12/16/97, Thomas Davidson wrote: > >Sheesh. Don't *even* get me started on Pat Robertson. :) > > I just finished a ten page paper on him for my "Fundamentalism and > Politics" class. The man is creepy. I just want to figure out why he > hates MSG so much...:) He hates MSG because of POE. Joel Mathis And watch out for the flouride, too ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:05 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> One last time... On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Redneck Gaijin wrote: > >I've always had my mind made up. I'm not bothered by autosuccess. > > > >I am bothered by a system that REQUIRES autosuccess to do good damage. > > Thank you. No prob. > >So will you please explain just what the hell you're talking about? Please > >feel free to actually re-read what I said first. > > Simple. A Str12 does Power +6 in bare-handed combat. > > A Str2 does Power +1. > > Bare fists, without claws, acid, what-not, have a Power of -3. > > The Str12 person would have a net bonus of +3 to Power- about the same as a > mid-size pistol. > > The Str2 person would have a net penalty of -2. Right. So at most, they'd have a damage bonus of +3 to the CD (a net power of +3). I was comparing that to a damage bonus of +4 and you said that mine was more outlandish. That is what I didn't (still don't) understand; how a final check digit modifier of +3 is more outlandish than +4. > >Because it operates under the assumption that Agility governs the body's > >agilty, and that Strength governs the body's strength. > > Agility governs one's speed and reflexes- it's important for dodging, > running, jumping. > > Strength is a combination of raw power, control, and coordination- it's a > much more all-inclusive Corporeal characteristic than Agility. That still makes no sense...the term "Agility", by definition, covers coordination much more than the term "Strength" does. > Given these definitions, I have no problem at all basing Fighting/Martial > Arts on Strength alone. Perhaps, but those definitions make no sense. > >> Raw strength can only do so much to boos> >CORP F: 4 > >Strength 12 > >Agility 6 > >Fighting/6 > > > >ROLL TO HIT: Automatic > >DAMAGE: CD + 5 > > Correction: isn't it CD + 7? Lessee. Target 18 is 6 over. Add 1 for Str/9+ and 1 for Fight/5+. Total is 8 over. Power -3 plus 8 equals 5. Nope, that's right. > >Sample IN Character > >CORP F: 3 > >Strength 9 > >Agility 3 > >Fighting/5 > > > >ROLL TO HIT: Automatic > >DAMAGE: CD + 1 > > CD + 3? Target 14 is 2 over. Add 2 for Str and Fighting. Power -3 plus 4 is 1. > Characters who are -already- at a severe disadvantage due to low Strength > will have another level of inequity between them and high-Str characters. > Not only will they not recieve an appreciable boost to their chances of > hitting a high-Str player, they do -even less- damage to that someone than > that high-Str player does to them. If they have a higher Agility than their Str, then they WILL receive a boost towards hitting that person, plus a minor damage bonus based on their Str. The bigger guy who loaded up on Str (but not Agility) will actually have a harder time hitting the little guy, but will do more damage when he does hit. > The system -is- broke, but IMHO (as I have said many times) the part you're > fixing isn't what's broke. Your 'fix' adds complexity, adds inequity, > weights combat towards a characteristic which IMHO has little influence on > hand-to-hand brawling, and as you say, produces similar results. I disagree that it adds complexity. I agree that it adds inequity (it makes high-Str people do more damage than low-Str people; that was intentional). And I agree that it factors Agility into things more. > I'm rethinking the combat system I use, but it will be based on STR + FIGHT. > It will not allow automatic success on any but the simplest of tasks. It > will provide only modest, if any, bonuses for super-strength. It will have a > more sensible and easy to understand weapons system. And most importantly, > it will be as simple as I can possibly make it. I'd like to see what you come up with. It might give me some ideas. Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Married to Rev. Unibomber on 11/15/96 - be jealous ;) Meow! The Devil went down / to Newport town He brought his red surfboard / to race against the Lord It was totally rocking... totally rocking... "The Devil Went Down to Newport", Mono Puff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1986 19:05:02 -0000 From: "Derek Colanduno" Subject: IN> Rules Systems are Customizable... >My group is a group of Amber gamers. We're all avid GURPS/Shadowrun/AD&D >people as well, but we're attracted to Amber because of it's flow. >Combat in that game is very very fast, and cinematic. Most have become >rabid IN converts because the game is intellectual crack, and I'm >spreading the drug. > >For the most part, the rules are very nice and solid. I will actually >defer to the rulebook on all sorts of stuff. But the problem comes in on >combat. > >The problem is that there is too much crap to figure out when rolling >dice, and because my game is extremely fast moving and dice light, this >causes combat to really bog down. I am working on making this an easier >system, for me, for my players, and for my lagging sanity that isn't taken >over my angst ridden demons. I just haven't had time and it won't come >out until (early projection) Early February. I have been the Game Master in over 20 different Role Playing Game Systems and have never once used any one of those systems *exactly* by the book. I personally hate needing to figure out long strings of modfiers and statistics and the like. I do however attempt to stick to the basic idea of the system as best as possible, remember, the people who write these games probably play-tested the living Sh*&t out of the thing and it must have worked pretty well for them. A game doesn't go all the way to full national or international print without some amount of playtesting, at least table-top systems don't... I think the one major problem any RPG system has is the Combat Rules. Combat is the single most complex problem when working on any RPG Table Top or Live Action. I currently run two very large Live Action groups and a few table-top groups. The Live Action groups I run are 'Archeion' a system I have designed and am developing, and 'In Nomine', yes I know there isn't any LARP rules for IN yet, so I made and am playtesting some, it's working quite perfectly too. Both of my Live Action Games have over 90 players. My Table Top games are In Nomine and Vampire: Dark Ages, both are over 10 players in size. (Yes, that IS a lot of people in one Table Top session. And, yes I am trimming it down!) In all above cases it's the Combat that gives me the biggest headache. Everyone, and I mean EVERY individual on the planet believes Combat in Role Playing should run differently. I have completly re-written some Combat systems, (Vampire the Masquerade LARP for example), and others I have made small minor changes. I eventually went so far as to write my own system completely! But, all in all, I have never been able to keep all the players in any group *completely* happy with Combat, no matter if the group size was 5 or 105... In all games you have to remember that in a 'Dice Light, or No Dice system' you will have many people who enjoy advanced systems and 'realistic' modfiers complain about the fac that they feel 'cheated' in some way because of one modifier or another that they are losing in the translation. In a 'Dice Heavy' system it takes four hours for a character to wipe their ass, let alone do some quick combat maneuvers. So, the trick is to find a way to keep everyone happy. As a Game Master I usually use different methods even during the same game session. It usually depends on what the player is attempting to do. Now, in the In Nomine world I have modified things a bit from the original book system. Personally, I use two different systems of fist damage for Celestials and mundane people and creatures. It makes sense for a Celestial to do a ton of damage with thier bare hands, but I've been in a couple fights, and I have been shot with a gun before, and TRUST me, I'll take the fist... in fact I will take a few over the gun shot anyday. So I use a toned down damage system when I am dealing with mundanes or other non-celesital creatures. I also use the same 'to hit' system for both Celestials and Mundanes. The system I use is fairly simple for hitting targets... I'll get around to writing that one down in another post... I think I have made this one too long already, and since I was on the phone during the writing of it, I'm not too sure it makes a lot of sense as to the topic. I guess what I am tring to say, is lets keep this list fun and informative, not a place to flame and get mad at each other for the ways we like to run our own games. Derek Colanduno ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:53:46 EST From: MarkDEddy Subject: Re: Re: IN> Other Vessel Questions In a message dated 12/16/97 10:19:10 AM, you wrote: >True, but claymores aren't in common use these days. }:-{D > >Redneck "What's Green, Square, and says 'This Side Towards Enemy?'" Mark(Sorry, I couldn't resist, not after the RPG confusion!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:30:51 +0000 From: Sam Kington Subject: Body hits, stats and corresponding skills (was: Re: IN> One last time...) Well, I've been following this thread for quite a while, and I must confess I haven't taken the time to really do the maths, so I have no idea who's right and who's wrong. Actually, FWIW, I believe the problem with corporeal combat is not so much how often people hit and how often they do damage, but the huge difference in body hits. In my campaign, I have two humans with 2 body hits (admittedly the bottom end of the scale); otherwise, I have 9-Force Celestials with body hits ranging from 9 to 54, most of them clustered around the bottom end of the scale with the combat-heavy types typically above 40. This is a *huge* difference: put them in a group, spray them with machine-gun fire, half of the group will go poof immediately and the other half will still be standing. This isn't necessarily a cause of game imbalance - I'd be a rotten GM if I threw way too hard NPCs at combat-unready characters and had them all die, or had a couple of party members wade through wimpy demons and cut them in half with one stroke of a sword. But nonetheless, it's a substantial difference, and something you have to be aware of when you're running combat. Redneck Gaijin wrote: [snip] > Agility governs one's speed and reflexes- it's important for dodging, > running, jumping. > > Strength is a combination of raw power, control, and coordination- it's a > much more all-inclusive Corporeal characteristic than Agility. > > (Precision, BTW, governs tasks which require a degree of concentration.) > > Given these definitions, I have no problem at all basing Fighting/Martial > Arts on Strength alone. Which reminds me of a point I've often thought about: in the same way as basing everything on a d6 makes for a very course granularity system, only having six basic stats means some of the base stats for skills can sometimes be arbitrary. As a musician, I've often wondered whether the music skill should be based upon Precision (concentration and precise manual control required to play the instrument) or Perception (you have to have a good ear to be at all musical). (For that matter, Intelligence comes into it as well, certainly during the learning process, and maybe for composing.) Other skills I don't object to too much, but that's because I don't know too much about them. As we've seen in the combat examples, although ranged weapons are mainly Precision-based and contact weapons Strength-based, there's certainly a Precision (aiming) and Agility (feinting, possibly) aspect to contact weapons, and unless we're talking about a sniper on a roof there's a Strength aspect to ranged weapons too (not everyone can throw a big huge knife or take the recoil from an automatic weapon in their stride). There's no easy way to fix this in the current system: it's a simple system that, by necessity, has rough edges. If, like Pee Kitty, you want more realism, you can add modifiers based on other stats - for instance, if someone has Strength 9 and Precision 2, I wouldn't let him have Large Weapon at more than 3, just because although he may be able to swing it hard, he's not that good at aiming and won't be able to master the higher levels. Similarly, I won't let him boost Large Weapon by spending character points until he puts up Precision. You can even add in modifers in actual combat, if you think it's worth the additional complexity. The bonuses to Power for high strength and Fighting skill make sense to me, and I don't see why you couldn't extend this system to other skills - if either the stat or the skill is in the top third of the possible range, and neither is in the bottom third, give the check digit a bonus. OTOH, you can simply ignore this and go with the flow. Hell, my players have to worry about how many body hits they have, because otherwise they'll die; no way, though, am I taking more than a rough count of how many the NPCs have. If this is a good and appropriate time for them to die, they'll die, and to hell with numbers. Sam - -- Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati Down with categorical imperative! ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #520 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.