From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Oct 14 19:23:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13788 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:23:15 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA03208 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:50:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:50:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199810142350.SAA03208@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #977 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 Wednesday, October 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 977 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs Re: IN> Shedim Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith IN> We're not in Boston anymore Toto! (was Re: IN- IN - Boston Help?) IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith Re: IN> More Lilim craziness Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) IN> new Malakim and trauma Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE Re: IN> IN FUDGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:28:42 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > > At 12:04 AM -0500 10/12/98, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >that reminds me, anyone know if socerors can escape their dreamscapes? > > I think not, but I could see them making their dreamscapes transperent > (like those bubbles Steed & Peel were walking in, in the _Avengers_ movie > (which isn't as good as the series, but was amusing with all the riffs > on other movies in it)), and possibly form-fitting, especially in > an ethereal Domain. You take your dreams with you... I like that. ;) > >Hrm... But, what if, say, a Demon Prince wished a human soldier to > >possess an ethereal (or celestial) song, would the DP have the power to > >do it? Or is that left to the whim of individual GM's? > > I think the canon is yes, and of course yes -- individual GMs can > do everything they want... Yes, that sounds right. In general, a Superior can do LOTS of things that there aren't rules for. Something like this would be pretty easy, actually. Not cost efficient, though. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 98 18:32 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs >>Hrm... But, what if, say, a Demon Prince wished a human soldier to >>possess an ethereal (or celestial) song, would the DP have the power to >>do it? Or is that left to the whim of individual GM's? > >>Yes, they can do this, by granting the special attunement to the >>Soldier. That's basically what it's for. Normally, only Blandine and >>Beleth routinely grant the ethereal one to their Soldiers, but I don't >>believe it's exclusive to them. > >The special attunement? I don't recall seeing anything about >attunements for soldiers, except for Sorcerors. Is this something in >Night Music (which I don't have...) ? No, it's in Songbook (Liber Canticorum) as part of the expanded explanations of Song mechanics. So you wouldn't have seen it yet unless you were one of the Songbook playtesters. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:39:15 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> Shedim At 22:57 13/10/98 , you wrote: >> What happens if a Sedite attempts to possess a body already possessed by >>a Kyrio? >They get to make resonance rolls every turn (including the human, >at least for the first round) until one fails and is kicked out. I made them roll Will, and the Kyrio won. It was in a gym full of children, so the shed just jumped to a nearby kid, and grabbed a bat... Two Malakites burst in, knowing there is a demon inside the gym (but not knowing it was a Shedite - their guess was Habbalah), so they opened fire on the kid. MAJOR dissonance. The Shedite just jumped to another child, and had no problem whatsoever to convince him to attack the raving loonies. It kept jumping, and they kept firing, and the poor Kyrio couldn't be heard over the shots; so he finally used a song of Thunder, then a song of possession on the kid held by the Shedite, and drove him out. The death toll was high - six kids dead, plenty of others wounded and terrified out of their wits. Malakites had to jump town and had a *very* rough conversation with Michael (Mixed Michael-Christopher operations just don't work, it seems...) Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:42:54 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) In a message dated 10/13/98 9:42:14 PM, spook_number_six@hotmail.com writes: >Mark off another Vessel, citizen. >:) >That reminds me, anyone doing In Nomine: Paranoia? > >-Perry > >Perry M. Lloyd (spook_number_six@hotmail.com) > >"Remember, false hope is still hope." > -Dilbert Only vaguely. I use the Paranoia combat system for my (mostly serious) In Nomine game. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:53:30 -0500 From: Heresy Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith Perry Lloyd wrote: > >* Strolling naked through an urban/suburban community for one hour > >(+2) > > Uhhh... I wouldn't give it a +2, too easy. For an _hour_? Perry, doing that for five minutes is liable to get you arrested in most places. Making it through an hour is demonstrating ability to not be restrained by a) clothing, b) social mores, and c) the police. Of course, being in a society where public nudity is a common, acceptable occurrence would invalidate this particular ritual. ;) - -Chris - -- "What doesn't kill you... should have been done properly." -Moogle on IRC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:44:42 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> We're not in Boston anymore Toto! (was Re: IN- IN - Boston Help?) In message , Perry Lloyd writes > >Superior's opinions on the statement: > "It often takes violence in order to effect positive change" > ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ >Assuming violence implies physical/emotional violence and positive means >in the favor of those engaging in the violence. > Also violence in the sense of 'forceful upheaval' and not neccessarily just in favour of those engaging in it but perhaps for their communities or indeed others that they may be representing indirectly. > >PRO CON >Laurence Novalis >Michael Marc >Baal Yves >Belial David >Saminga Kronos >Kobal Lilith > Actually, from that list I'd stick just about everyone on the CON side over in the PRO column. I think that you could get most Superiors to show _some_ agreement with the statement, even if they don't espouse it. Marc might mumble and ask you to change the words 'It often' in there to 'It's been known to' and then accept. Yves might nod with a sad smile and say; 'Well, you may have something there'. Kronos might say; 'Of course, of course. Violence can very often be _fatal_ ...'. Lilith might simply console you after she's smothered your senile elderly parent (hey she's not *just* into infanticide!), and David might say; 'Of course, you realise that THIS MEANS WAR!... ' Only Novalis would have difficulty with it, I feel, as a blanket statement. >Hmmmm... Seems like a matter of perspective, at least from where I'm >standing. Absolutely. ;) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:54:31 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs >>Yes, they can do this, by granting the special attunement to the >>Soldier. That's basically what it's for. Normally, only Blandine and >>Beleth routinely grant the ethereal one to their Soldiers, but I don't >>believe it's exclusive to them. > >The special attunement? I don't recall seeing anything about >attunements for soldiers, except for Sorcerors. Is this something in >Night Music (which I don't have...) ? It's in the Liber Canticorum (sorry if I screwed the spelling). Some people should wait for some books to come out before referring to them (false jab) Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire (I need a word!) "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:06:04 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 05:21:55PM -0500, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >* Strolling naked through an urban/suburban community for one hour > >(+2) > > Uhhh... I wouldn't give it a +2, too easy. > Well, if it's somewhere you wouldn't get arrested/lynched for doing so, 1 Essence would be appropriate. But in most places you would be arrested/lynched for doing so. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:12:55 -0400 From: Kirt Dankmyer Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith > Well, if it's somewhere you wouldn't get arrested/lynched for doing so, 1 > Essence would be appropriate. But in most places you would be > arrested/lynched for doing so. I'll note, however, that this is easily accomplished, without being arrested or whatever, even in areas where that would happen, at night. One hour is trivial when that hour is 3 am, and Celestials don't sleep. -Loki - -- Kirt A. Dankmyer --- Academic Computing Specialist http://www.wfu.edu/~dankmyka/ -- (910) 759-4202 -- PGP public key available. For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see. --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:50:25 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 04:12:55AM -0400, Kirt Dankmyer wrote: > > Well, if it's somewhere you wouldn't get arrested/lynched for doing so, 1 > > Essence would be appropriate. But in most places you would be > > arrested/lynched for doing so. > > I'll note, however, that this is easily accomplished, without being arrested or > whatever, even in areas where that would happen, at night. One hour is trivial > when that hour is 3 am, and Celestials don't sleep. > -Loki > If you manage to wander around for an hour in an "urban or suburban area" without meeting anyone, even at 3am, I'd be very surprised. Arguably, it's a more dangerous stunt to try at that hour, depending on how drunk the people you encounter are. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:21:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> More Lilim craziness On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > > An > >example of a slightly harder task is, assume Joe Doe is a single parent who > >needs to find a reliable babysitter for a couple of hours a week so that he > >can work late at the office -- if the lilim proves to be such a person, > >that would almost certainly count as a decent level of need. If she has > >decent celestial forces (and most of them probably do) it won't be hard for > >her to detect needs. Then after she has done it for a few weeks she can > >even get him to murder his own children. > > And after a few weeks of babysitting, *she'll* Need that.... Am I the only one who has trouble keeping up with this list? Anyway, a week late, but here are my 2 cents. I don't think you are interpreting the need properly. The need is for a babysitter on a more or less permanent basis for several years. That is a level six need, which can be inned only if the lilim has done it. she doesn't get a new geas every week, unless the parent is stupid that he/she only thinks in one week periods. if he/she only needs it for a couple of hours on one week, or a month then I would say its only a level one or 2 geas (its only a couple of hours a week, not the whole week). I also don't allow trivial geases. Hey I need a pen to write something, and there just happens to be a lilim with a pen. What she gets for that is a level 0 geas. Add that up all you want. mvg, Jasper The instrument that can measure my indifference has not yet been invented. Igor (Olga) - Mouse and the Monster ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:29:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jasper Reijer Floor Subject: Re: IN> Lilith On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Earl Wajenberg wrote: > That sense is perhaps enough for a dark side of the Word > Freedom. But they are very appropriate to the myth of > Lilith, who is the enemy of human children. That may be a myth about her, but I don't think it's canon. Anyway, I disagree that Lilith is getting too nice. I thought she was getting less nice. While she does support every aspect of freedom, not just anarchy, and isn't cruel as written, she is selfish. She might not choke children, but she won't save a drowning child either. She accepts power from lucifer, cause she needs it to be as independent as possible, but I'm sure she doesn't like this need. mvg, Jasper The instrument that can measure my indifference has not yet been invented. Igor (Olga) - Mouse and the Monster ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 98 10:25:26 EDT From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) According to Perry Lloyd: > Mark off another Vessel, citizen. >:) > That reminds me, anyone doing In Nomine: Paranoia? In the In Nomine game I was running, the PCs were about to realize how Paranoia-ish Heaven was. Hell is just too...anarchic..to be like Alpha Complex. "Die, Infernal Discord-ridden Traitor!" :):) SeanMike - -- SeanMike Whipkey - smw4s@virginia.edu - spambuster@cstone.net; bobcode: KIHth- lwWudmHp EGd+++ m4 CPEIV B12 Ouw Le ScnsMIC T- A7LAT H6 b2 D1 "Protecting the Internet from the spam of the universe." Fight spam! Support CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org/ Retake your inbox! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:59:43 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 10:25:26AM -0400, Highway Star wrote: > In the In Nomine game I was running, the PCs were about to > realize how Paranoia-ish Heaven was. Hell is just > too...anarchic..to be like Alpha Complex. > > "Die, Infernal Discord-ridden Traitor!" :):) > Actually, Alpha Complex is entirely anarchic (or at least chaotic). It's just that the extent of the anarchy is hidden from the masses. If you played a version of Hell where nobody knew the names of the Princes, and you only had contact with your immediate supervisor and fellow Troubleshooters, it would be very Paranoia-esque. Heaven just doesn't cut it, IMO. Angels lack the malice, selfishness, and information-deprivation needed for it to work. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:45:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Diane J. Donaldson" Subject: IN> new Malakim and trauma So I know Malakim don't usually get trauma when their vessels are destroyed, seeing as how they're so used to it....but what about brand-new Malakim? Do they suffer trauma the first few dozen times until they get used to it? Do their Superiors take them down to earth and kill them a bunch, just so they'll get the hang of it? "Hold still, I've only got to disembowel you a few more times and then we're done!" :-P Or is this an innate Malakim trait? (Apologies if this has been asked before, I'm new to the list, and searching on "Malakim" and "trauma" doesn't narrow it down much!) Diane Donaldson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 98 12:45:09 EDT From: Highway Star Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) According to Kevin Walsh: > Heaven just doesn't cut it, IMO. Angels lack the malice, selfishness, and > information-deprivation needed for it to work. It depends on how you run it. Heaven has the "utopia" feel to it (of course!) but you'd need God to be more active to act as the Computer. Malice? I think Dominic is pretty good at that. Selfishness? Yeah, most of them seem to show that at times. Information deprivation? Definitely. SeanMike - -- SeanMike Whipkey - smw4s@virginia.edu - spambuster@cstone.net; bobcode: KIHth- lwWudmHp EGd+++ m4 CPEIV B12 Ouw Le ScnsMIC T- A7LAT H6 b2 D1 "Protecting the Internet from the spam of the universe." Fight spam! Support CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org/ Retake your inbox! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:47:23 -0400 From: Ron Carnegie Subject: Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? At 05:11 PM 10/12/98 EDT, you wrote: >>Why do you think the Revolutionary War wasn't Laurence's kind of war? > >I should have added "in the Boston area" -- that was the context for the >comment. There weren't too many classical-style battles fought around >Boston, as far as I know; it was pretty much all militia stuff, I think. >The bigger battles, which I see more as Laurence's sort, were fought >more to the west and south of New England, as best I can remember. > > >---Walter > > The battle of Breed's Hill (mistakenly called Bunker's) is a classically fought battle. Cheers, Ron Carnegie rcarnegie@widomaker.com ************************************************* "The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once on this earth, on this familiar spot of ground walked other men and women as actual as we are today, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions but now all gone, vanishing after another, gone as utterly as we ourselves shall be gone like ghosts at cockcrow." G.M. Trevelyan ************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:28:27 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? Ron Carnegie wrote: > >I should have added "in the Boston area" -- that was the context for the > >comment. There weren't too many classical-style battles fought around > >Boston, as far as I know; it was pretty much all militia stuff, I think. > >The bigger battles, which I see more as Laurence's sort, were fought > >more to the west and south of New England, as best I can remember. > > >---Walter > > The battle of Breed's Hill (mistakenly called Bunker's) is a classically > fought battle. Sort of. Actually, I think you're both right. The British forces were regulars (as at Lexington and Concord), and there could be a good tie in to the archangels there. But the Patriot forces were at best half-trained militia. They largely attempted to fight the battle in an approximation of orthodox style, but botched the job pretty badly. Had the British not picked the worst possible landing spot and then dilly-dallied up the slope, they'd probably have thoroughly trashed the opposition. It was one of the battles that convinced Washington that he had to find the time to do proper training. Which he did. The Continentals Nathaniel Greene led into the southern campaigns were among the best troops in the world. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:39:41 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma Diane J. Donaldson wrote: > > So I know Malakim don't usually get trauma when their vessels are > destroyed, seeing as how they're so used to it....but what about brand-new > Malakim? Do they suffer trauma the first few dozen times until they get > used to it? Do their Superiors take them down to earth and kill them a > bunch, just so they'll get the hang of it? "Hold still, I've only got to > disembowel you a few more times and then we're done!" :-P Or is this an > innate Malakim trait? It doesn't say, specifically, in the book that the reason they are immune to trauma is because they suffered it so many times. It just says they are innured to death from having suffered it so often. So, the trauma avoidance is part of their resonance, even for new Malakim. What may happen, however, is that the first time a Malakite dies, they may be a bit confused for a round or two. This isn't Trauma, just a settling-in period for a very unsettling experience! One of the most defining moments in a Malakite's existance, IMO, is the first time they die. Unlike other choirs/bands, they don't retreat into Trauma and experience their death fully. Also IMO, it's their vows that help anchor them and draw them back from the brink of Trauma. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:07:51 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma At 11:45 AM -0400 10/14/98, Diane J. Donaldson wrote: >So I know Malakim don't usually get trauma when their vessels are >destroyed, seeing as how they're so used to it....but what about brand-new >Malakim? Do they suffer trauma the first few dozen times until they get >used to it? Do their Superiors take them down to earth and kill them a >bunch, just so they'll get the hang of it? "Hold still, I've only got to >disembowel you a few more times and then we're done!" :-P Or is this an >innate Malakim trait? It's really an innate Malakite trait, I think -- other demons, even the infamous munchkin K.K., don't get it. However, a Malakite being killed for his first few times may well be disoriented -- a GM could easily stick them in mini-Trauma, substituting hours or minutes for days when making rolls. (IOW, I'd probably do that as a GM, but it's too complex to put into canon, so I'm not going to do that.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:15:45 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> new Malakim and trauma At 3:07 PM -0400 10/14/98, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: >It's really an innate Malakite trait, I think -- other demons, even I think I've been listening to varient IN campaigns a little too much recently. "Other" indeed... "Other *celestials*", is more what I meant... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1998 14:43:07 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Re: IN- Mortals using Songs >>>>> "PL" == Perry Lloyd writes: PL> that reminds me, anyone know if socerors can escape their dreamscapes? I don't think it's an ability that comes with being a sorceror. Lucid dreamers (mortals with the Dreaming skill) can, and many sorcerors may also be lucid dreamers, but there's no necessary connection (AFAIK). - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1998 14:48:53 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia (was: Mortals using Songs) >>>>> "M" == MarkDEddy writes: M> In a message dated 10/13/98 9:42:14 PM, spook_number_six@hotmail.com writes: >> That reminds me, anyone doing In Nomine: Paranoia? M> Only vaguely. I use the Paranoia combat system for my (mostly M> serious) In Nomine game. Can you go into more detail on this? I really like the Paranoia combat system (because I don't like combat systems with hit points), but I can't think of any reasonably smooth way of integrating it into In Nomine. I don't like fooling with the IN mechanics too much, because the possibility of Interventions on any kind of roll pretty much ties you to d666. Still, I'd be interested in seeing Dramatic Tactical Combat for IN. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:15:54 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN- Lilith Kevin Walsh wrote: > > I'll note, however, that this is easily accomplished, without being arrested or > > whatever, even in areas where that would happen, at night. One hour is trivial > > when that hour is 3 am, and Celestials don't sleep. > > If you manage to wander around for an hour in an "urban or suburban area" > without meeting anyone, even at 3am, I'd be very surprised. Arguably, it's > a more dangerous stunt to try at that hour, depending on how drunk the > people you encounter are. A couple of my friends live in the nearest suburb to the city centre, about 2 minutes walk from the CBD. They've gone nude jogging at 2am a few times, and encountered very few people (and the ones they found didn't make a fuss). One of these friends also turned up nude to the inner-city botanic gardens one night for a water-pistol fight. And still more of my friends have this weird habit of getting nude at parties or at our old weekly poker games. You don't want to try doing it in front of the police, but public nudity is still doable. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Hallucinations are bad enough. But after a while you learn to cope with things like seeing your dead grandmother crawling up your leg with a knife in her teeth. Most acid fanciers can handle this sort of thing. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:45:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> IN FUDGE I've been thinking about converting IN to the FUDGE system, but since I'm a very lazy person I thought I'd check here to see if anyone's already done it. :) I think FUDGE is a pretty good choice for a conversion - it's simple, easily customizable, and if you use three normal dice to simulate FUDGE-dice, you can still use the normal rules for intervention. :) So, if anyone's done anything along these lines, I'd be most grateful if you'd point me to a page/mail me the info/give me some rough idea of what you've done. If not, I guess I'll have to do it myself, which probably means it won't happen... :-/ Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1998 16:55:09 -0500 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE >>>>> "AG" == Anders Gabrielsson writes: AG> I've been thinking about converting IN to the FUDGE system, but AG> since I'm a very lazy person I thought I'd check here to see if AG> anyone's already done it. :) I think FUDGE is a pretty good choice AG> for a conversion - it's simple, easily customizable, and if you AG> use three normal dice to simulate FUDGE-dice, you can still use AG> the normal rules for intervention. :) I think it would be a nice idea. There are a lot of things I don't like about IN's mechanics, but I'm uncomfortable with changing them since some of them (like Forces and Interventions) tie in so closely with the setting. One of the real advantages of using FUDGE-based rules would be that the Stat+Skill problem would go away. And as you say, you could still keep interventions, if you weren't using real dF. Also you would get combat based on damage levels (what I was saying was nice about Paranoia) instead of hitpoints, and you could use FUDGE's concept of Scale to handle the difference in resilience between mortals and vessels. It could work though I'm sure some things would remain an awkward fit. Anyway, I haven't seen it done, but I might not know if it had been. I'd be willing to collaborate some, though I'm probably at least as lazy as you are. - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:50:47 +1000 From: "Patrick O'Duffy" Subject: Re: IN> IN FUDGE Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > >>>>> "AG" == Anders Gabrielsson writes: > > AG> I've been thinking about converting IN to the FUDGE system, but > AG> since I'm a very lazy person I thought I'd check here to see if > AG> anyone's already done it. :) I think FUDGE is a pretty good choice > AG> for a conversion - it's simple, easily customizable, and if you > AG> use three normal dice to simulate FUDGE-dice, you can still use > AG> the normal rules for intervention. :) > > I think it would be a nice idea. There are a lot of things I don't > like about IN's mechanics, but I'm uncomfortable with changing them > since some of them (like Forces and Interventions) tie in so closely > with the setting. I also have thought about FUDGEing IN, at a time when I was looking at all the games I own and thinking about how to FUDGE them (mainly a thought experiment). Forces were the stumbling block for me, since they form such a big part of the IN mechanics but don't translate smoothly into FUDGE. > One of the real advantages of using FUDGE-based rules would be that > the Stat+Skill problem would go away. And as you say, you could still > keep interventions, if you weren't using real dF. You could still use the usual 4dF. Interventions happen in IN once every 108 rolls (on average). Having them happen on a rolled result of -4 or +4 in FUDGE would make them occur every ((1/3 ^4) x2) 40 or so rolls. Make the rule that a Intervention requires a +/- 4 rolled result, and a Legendary+ or worse than Terrible total, and the odds should work out about the same. > Also you would get > combat based on damage levels (what I was saying was nice about > Paranoia) instead of hitpoints, and you could use FUDGE's concept of > Scale to handle the difference in resilience between mortals and > vessels. It could work though I'm sure some things would remain an > awkward fit. Scale would be tricky if you keep the 1-6 levels of Vessel as per IN. Someone with a Damage Capacity of 9 (Superb Strength & 6 Vessel Scales) would be almost impossible to hurt, even with a rocket launcher. > Anyway, I haven't seen it done, but I might not know if it had been. > I'd be willing to collaborate some, though I'm probably at least as > lazy as you are. Hell, I'm lazier than 10 lazy men... But I'd recommend that you have a look at the GURPS/IN conversion notes at the IN website first. Not because I'm advocating using GURPS (I'm not fond of it), but because you can see how other people have puzzled out the tricky to convert things like Forces and Essence. - -- Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Hallucinations are bad enough. But after a while you learn to cope with things like seeing your dead grandmother crawling up your leg with a knife in her teeth. Most acid fanciers can handle this sort of thing. HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #977 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.