From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Oct 19 11:57:33 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 LAA31294 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:57:33 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA27939 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:32:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:32:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199810191632.LAA27939@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 #982 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 Monday, October 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 982 In this digest: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #981 IN> Victorious Michael Re: IN> Lilith Re: IN> Song of Possession Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment IN> GMs Wanted! IN> Michael and Malakim IN> If Michael Fell.. Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial Re: IN> The Final Trumpet: My opinion Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) RE: IN> Michael and Malakim IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? Re: IN> Information Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:29:15 From: "CA Smith" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #981 Michael Nutt wrote >>One last thing - why was David able to soul-kill the Fallen demon when he >>first showed up to punish Max? Surely she wasn't daft enough to attack >>him, and he can't throw the first (fill in attack name here) without >>suffering dissonance. What happened? > >"David's not bound by the same rules that he puts on his Servitors" is the >explanation that immediately comes to mind. I think we can assume this to be >a general rule for Superiors, although I think their behavior ought to >*reflect* these ideas that seem so important to them. I doubt Gabriel spends >her time swatting the cruel, for instance, and who, short of God, could give >Laurence any orders to follow? In the Digest #965 (6/10) Archangel Beth wrote that the reason that David didn't pound Magog from here to, well, hell was his feelings on starting fights so why should he make an exception here and not with a once favoured servitor who has just become a DP. Chris Smith Gremlim of Vapula Why do Calabim of Belial think bigger is better? a little snip here, a little snip there... and all hell breeaks loose! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:21:16 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Victorious Michael There is some discussion as to whether or not Michael could once more best Lucifer. But who is to say that the original conflict was in any way clear cut? Michael's victory is common knowledge, but it may not have been an easy one. In fact, it may have almost ended in disaster. Just suppose, that at the end of the duel, Lucifer had gained the upper hand. Instead of finishing Michael, he showed him compassion. After all, this fight was not _with_ his brother. Lucifer, in his moment of glory, surveyed all around him. The multitudes of choirs were hushed. Everywhere, angels were ashen. Some hid their faces. Others wept. Lucifer's own rebels were agog with expectation. It was a moment that seemingly lasted an aeon, and as Lucifer turned away from the bested champion at his feet, he turned to face His radiance. Slowly, confidantly, he began to raise a defiant fist... Baal saw it. Just as he was raising Lucifer's standard in an accompanying gesture of victory, he saw that Michael had recovered. He shouted a warning, but Michael was too fast, too keen... The fist was never raised, Michael tackled Lucifer, smote him, and cast him down. Baal rushed forward with a terrible battle cry and tearfull eyes, but he and his conspirators never reached the wounded Michael for David and Uriel crossed his path. For the rebels it ended there. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:57:07 -0500 From: Vz Subject: Re: IN> Lilith At 11:02 AM 10/15/1998 -0400, you wrote: >Given the current debate about Lilith, I thought that I'd post something >that one of my professors said, specifically about Lilith. Apparently, and >this predates the current set of Lilith myths, she's a Mesopotamian princess >named "Lilitu" (the Israelis called her Lilith, and then in the Middle Ages >the current myths arrived about Adam's wife). She was the female night >spirit, a "God-like demon," who was one step down from the Gods. What's most >interesting is who she goes after: men, asleep, who she makes indecent >suggestions to or seduces. (If she get impregnated then she gives birth to a >spirit, who are mean and nasty.) There's a male counterpart to Lilitu, too, >named Lilu (Lilh or Lith, I suppose, in modern English). He does basically >the same things as Lilitu. (In fact, prayers address them as the same, >Lili.) I believe this is the mythology that is eventually absorbed into the Catholic church -- what after all was not absorbed into the church during it's rise in the Roman Empire -- and eventually became the stories about inccubi and succubi. Lilith was supposedly the hand-maiden and concubine of satan and demons, alike. Mother of demons. The first witch. The first succubi. Killer of children. Sometimes it amazes me the the stories that she has accumulated over the centuries, just through the stories being integrated into another set of beliefs, and new stories being created based on those originals. Or even, the legend being written anew in the new culture. And, now, we have this huge conglomeration of "the Legend of Lilith", from several cultures each with rich stories to fill the cold nights. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:27:06 -0500 From: Vz Subject: Re: IN> Song of Possession >I just reread the final (revised) draft of the Song of Possession for the >Liber Canticorum. Alas, it is not specified what happens if the body you >are possessing dies while you're in possession, only that when the Song >ends, you return to your body. (The write-up _does_ specify that your body >enters a comatose state while you're possessing someone else.) So, why aren't these clarifications added to the final (revised) draft? I mean, that's what the supplements are for -- to add depth to a part of the system, or to even completely change that part of the system. I, for one, personally hate having to look through 2 to 3 different sources and then have to check the IN: FAQ, and make a valid attempt at finding out which particular reference is the most updated and considered "CANON". Not that my opinion matters too much around here, me being a lurker and all for many months, almost two years, but if your going to fill in the gaps, why not fill in as many as possible when something gets revised. If you don't have enough pages in the new supplement, separate it into two. I don't think I would mind two whole books chocked full of Liber Canitcorum Goodness, with all the clarifications included. I know it would save me alot of time cross-referencing. My rant for the week, as I return to lurking... Vz *as Vz dives into the shadows, hoping no one chases him* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:15:02 -0400 From: Nana Yaw Ofori Subject: Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment At 6:52 PM -0500 10/17/98, Michael Nutt wrote: >Richard Gant wrote: >>One last thing - why was David able to soul-kill the Fallen demon when he >>first showed up to punish Max? Surely she wasn't daft enough to attack >>him, and he can't throw the first (fill in attack name here) without >>suffering dissonance. What happened? > As for what happened...Well, maybe the demon panicked. Max and Izix are standing over the corpse of the dead angel, who managed to mortally wound them both. Maximillian is almost catatonic, scarcely believing that he just helped murder an Angel. Izix is fighting back her disorientation and confused as her soul warps and changes, and trying to drag Maximillian out of the place before the Cops show up. And then there's a huge Symphonic crack as a seven-foot-tall blond, scowling, naked man pops in out of nowhere. Startled, working completely on reflex action, Izix swings her gun around, and to Maximillian's horror, pulls the trigger. The bullet ricochets off David's chest and buries itself in the wall. It's the lucky one. It doesn't have to hear the screams that follow. Or something like that. >"David's not bound by the same rules that he puts on his Servitors" is the >explanation that immediately comes to mind. I think we can assume this to be >a general rule for Superiors, although I think their behavior ought to >*reflect* these ideas that seem so important to them. I doubt Gabriel spends >her time swatting the cruel, for instance, and who, short of God, could give >Laurence any orders to follow? Personally, I'd take an opposite view. The Dissonance conditions of the various DPs and AA's are things you can expect the Superiors to /never/ willingly do. In the cases of where the Dissonance condition is completely voluntary, they just won't. Unless the very fate of the Symphony itself rests upon it, David won't throw the first punch. And I know of one Malakite PC who should thank his lucky stars he works for Michael instead. Though, come to think of it, that turned out a lot worse for him than Maximillian. \|=) ===== ><{{"> =================================================== <"}}>< ====== Nana-Yaw "The Fish" Ofori, Freelance Soldier of Heck, presenty serving nofori@pop3.utoledo.edu | Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh maltesh@usa.net | In Nomine: http://members.tripod.com/~maltesh/T317 ===== ><{{"> ============ "Life's a Fish, then you Fry." ======= <"}}>< ====== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:17:36 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: IN> GMs Wanted! Greetings. I'm the RPG coordinator for MonCon '99, which will be held on March 19-21st at the Tinton Falls Hilton in Tinton Falls NJ. In that capacity, I'm looking for GMs (and players, too) for In Nomine events at the convention. If you're in the NJ/NY/PA/MD area, and think you'd be interested in running such an event, please contact me -OFF-LIST- and I'll give you more specifics. Thanx for your time... - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:57:18 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Michael and Malakim >>>The APG said that the Malakim started appearing during the war, Yet Michael, who was obviously a front runner for turning into a Malakim, stayed as a Seraf.<<< Derek Pearcy's explanation (which I like) is that the fact that Michael (unlike Uriel) *didn't* transform from Seraph into Malakite is evidence of the strength of Michael's convictions. It shows just how resolute he is that even being Heaven's foremost warrior, he did not succumb to the overwhelming, vengeful impulse that consumed and transformed so many other angels (including some Archangels). He held true to his nature. He remained a Seraph. >>>Does this suggest an angel may ultimately CHOOSE to become an angel of another chior<<< No, the transformation of other Choirs into Malakim was a one-time event. Whether those who transformed at the time consciously chose to do so or not is an open question. >>>(Its already been established that its rare for an angel to become another chior, and serious things must happen to cause it).<<< Actually, so far the _only_ canonical example of an angel becoming another Choir is the first appearance of the Malakim. I think an Archangel probably could change an angel's Choir, but it would essential require taking the angel apart and putting him back together again differently, so you wouldn't really have the same being you had before. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 00:57:24 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> If Michael Fell.. >>>Also, Baal might react in any number of different ways. One of the more likely, I think, is that he would _want_ to serve under Michael again (now that his former boss has realized which is the right side) and actively help him take over from Lucifer. Mr. Edelstein, you wrote the extended write-up; is this a plausible reading of Baal's personality?<<< Jeez, I don't even make my students call me "Mister." :) I think that's a plausible response from Baal, but not the only possible one. Remember that what prompted Baal to join Lucifer and Fall in the first place was jealousy of Michael; he was sick of always being "*almost* as great as Michael." So while he might feel an initial jolt of satisfaction if Michael Fell, it would probably be replaced quickly by the realization that he's gone from being the most respected and feared Prince in Hell to playing second fiddle to Michael again. So how Baal reacts and which side he'd choose in a Lucifer-vs-Michael insurrection would depend a lot on the exact nature and sequence of events....and which Balseraph gets to whisper in Baal's ear first.... - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:48:00 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 01:54:55AM -0400, Akumsa@aol.com wrote: > I also find it a bit curious that Michael is a Seraf. I dont argue the point, > in fact I think it better suits him. However, War *MAY* Be better Suited to a > Malakite. I think War as a Word is better suited for an Ofanite or an Elohite. After all, deception is the basis of warfare, and you don't want someone who'll be tied down by niggly little scruples. The reason why Michael is a Seraph is probably that he's called a Seraph in the writings IN is based on, and also because of his position as the first of the angels. The reason he's Archangel of War is that he tossed Lucifer out of Heaven. (And that's the in-game and metagame reason.) 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:31:08 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> The Final Trumpet: My opinion On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 01:10:08PM -0700, Graveyard Greg wrote: > OK, as threatened, a review on the Final Trumpet. > > The Superiors: Good job by GR Cogman and David Edlestien! I like > Baal's writeup, especially on his attitude with Michael. > I read the intro story and the Superior writeups, but not the adventures. The first thoughts that come to mind are that Michael is a Balseraph, and that I didn't like the writeup of Malphas. As to Michael's Balseraphdom, his basic attitude appears to be that whoever can toast the other side is right. That he just happens to be able to toast most people in the universe is, doubtless, a happy coincidence that shows that he's always right. As to the writeup of Malphas, there were myriad reasons I didn't like it, which isn't the same thing as saying I thought it wasn't good. Firstly, I was somewhat dismayed by the idea that Malphas was always a sociopath. It gave the strong impression that if there hadn't been a Fall, he would have managed to create one, and also implies a setup. After all, he didn't become a sociopath, he was made that way. Also, I wanted to get some idea of what a Kyriotate Archangel who wasn't Jordi was like. Nothing. Secondly, I disliked the idea of Malphas' sense of mission. The idea of Shedim as ideologues of evil, instead of just being sadists, is not something I agree with. There is nothing in Kyriotate psychology that I know of that I can point to as an origin for that trait in Shedim, and I have a strong dislike for sticking bits into characters that come from nowhere. And the last part of the writeup was yet another Calabite with 2 Ethereal Forces, following up from the Calabite of Fate who appeared to have been written as a demonstration of how nice Calabim were underneath. In other areas, the writeup of Baal was nice, though I'm not sure of the utility of some of those attunements. And the Demon of Bad Art was quite amusing. And given Khalid's fondness for atheists' heads, I don't know why he hasn't already built a nice palazzo in Stygia. (It's not as if there aren't other things atheists can have faith in.) 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:36:21 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment Richard Gant wrote: >One last thing - why was David able to soul-kill the Fallen demon when he >first showed up to punish Max? Surely she wasn't daft enough to attack >him, and he can't throw the first (fill in attack name here) without >suffering dissonance. What happened? Um. How about 'David is a team player, and killing an angel counts as striking the first blow.'? David's dissonance says that his angels can't start fights. I don't think it says they can't join in before they personally have been attacked, and I think it does say that they will 'always finish a fight'. IMC, Servitors of David are allowed to help their friends. Alternatively, if you think the fight was over by the time David got there, maybe he made a mistake, and took dissonance for it. Explains why he stuffed up Max's punishment immediately afterwards. After that, his stone-headedness stopped him from admitting the mistake and bringing Max back. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:00:18 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:50:45PM -0400, gantr@NKU.EDU wrote: > > But don't forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom > > fighter. > > > > And it often takes violence in order to effect positive change. > > Perhaps. But I still find it morally ambiguous at best, and apalling at > worst. Terrorist actions are fairly despicable, no matter what the > justification used. > Define a terrorist action. What's the difference between killing someone with a car bomb and killing them with a Cruise missile? Or by firebombing their cities from the air? (Aside from the fact that collateral damage is likely to be much lower with a car bomb.) I believe violence to be inherently morally questionable. Sometimes, however, the alternative is inherently morally wrong. And the methods that are most effective are frequently the ones that create the greatest infrastructural and collateral damage. Such is life, unfortunately. The general difference between so-called terrorism and 'civilised warfare' is who has command of the taxation system, and who has to extort their monies by other means. It generally bears little relation to who has right on their side. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) I spent several hours staring at the ceiling last night, so I had plenty of time to hallucinate, er, think. So lessee... (Damn inner ear infection - - the left overs of pneumonia, true, but it's an irritation none the less.) > I've felt a little of the same thing. I think something could be gained by > shifting the focus from the plot to the characters - instead of > concentrating on what's happening, make the people involved the important > thing. Their relationships, how they act and react, how they are changed > by what happens. This way it doesn't matter as much if what happens > outside the characters is pretty much pre-ordained - it can still be an > enjoyable experience to see what happens inside the characters. That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head. The single largest failing of _all_ of the published adventures to date is that they aren't the slightest bit interested in the player characters. They are either designed to showcase some piece of rules contained in the book, to show off a new additional Superior, or as a piece of someone else's fiction. The first two problems - to showcase off new flashy rules or new Superiors can be fixed very quickly, simply by bringing a swift, sudden, painful end to this process. While demonstrating the rules is all fine and nice, this should likely be confined to a short 1/4th page adventure seed rather then an 11 page adventure (cough H&H cough) which cuts into the rest of the book needlessly. Instead, the adventures should either be drastically shortened, or written in a style that allows for freer, more interesting play. Preferably shortened. There, problem solved. No more zillions of new Superiors, no more bizarre rules to justify unplayable adventures. Half of the headaches of In Nomine GM's disappear into the void. The other problem - that the adventures aren't adventures at all, but pieces of someone's fiction - is a much larger problem. It's very obvious that this is exactly what the Demon Prince of Rock and Roll and Fall of the Malakim actually is, and there is simply a thin veneer of game laid over it to make it legitamite as an adventure game. First of all - and this is the big hint - someone's, and I assume Derek Pearcy's fiction - does not make it into a good game. I would not like to play a character wandering around in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment no matter how interesting a turn of the century St. Petersburg, and amazing amounts of nihilistic angst, happens to be. Considering that I'm not so hot on published RPG fiction in the first place, FASA's, TSR's, White Wolfs, or otherwise, this turns out to be a real turn off. The problems are not so much with the fact that FotM has so many plot holes you can drive busses through them and never hit the sides, or that most of the games are totally implausible. The problems with the big adventures are, as I see it: A) They're linear, and there is almost no deviation allowed from the plot allowed. The name for this is "railroading", and most players don't appreciate it. Linear is fine if you happen to be writing the code to get the Babel Fish out of the dispenser in 1984, but it's been completely out of style for almost 6 years now. There are some very good papers written in the last few years in the Computer Gaming journals about designing and building flexible, non-linear, interesting plots into adventure and role playing games. They're valuable reads, and the concepts are almost exactly the same. B) The adventures focus entirely on the author's favorite NPCs, be this Superiors or regular schmoes. Unfortunately, this does not make for a good game, and the PCs are almost completely written out of the plot, and thrown in as an afterthought. While good, solid NPCs are extremely valuable, a plot which hinges on them is not. C) A 'neat plot twist' does not make for a campaign. It makes for a good one shot. The basis of a campaign is long term character development and character interaction, and the plot is what happens in the long term, over dozens of sessions. The published adventures seem to completely miss this fact. C) The published adventures are not fun. That's really the bottom line. They make for nice fiction, maybe, but they aren't fun. If you ask yourself if you would like to play in this game, and you say "No", then something is wrong. I am, at this point, willing to brave throwing the baby out with the bathwater and say that some serious rethinking needs to go into how the adventures are designed, and the entire Revelations Cycle as a whole. Personally, I find the Revelations Cycle to be a real bomb. It's scattered, unfocused, rife with editing and writing errors, and completely unsatisfying. In Nomine is at it's very best when it's focused on one single subject - the IPG and the LR are the best supplements of the entire lot to have been published so far. There has go to be a different take on publishing the material other then the current approach. Anything would probably be better. So there's my rant. Now I can go back to work. :) There are likely some papers about game design on www.gamasutra.com, the computer gaming design online zine. - - Em Current Quote: Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son." Abe said, "Man you must be puttin me on." God said, "No", Abe said "What?" God said, "You can do what you wanna but the next time you see me comin' you better run." Well Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin done?" God said, "Out on Highway 61." - Bob Dylan, "Highway 61" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:33:23 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Michael and Malakim Quoth David Edelstein: Actually, so far the _only_ canonical example of an angel becoming another Choir is the first appearance of the Malakim. I think an Archangel probably could change an angel's Choir, but it would essential require taking the angel apart and putting him back together again differently, so you wouldn't really have the same being you had before. So basically, the angels who turned into Malakim felt so strongly about the Fall that they were will to submit to basic suicide of personality to reshape themselves into God's New Tool? I think my perception of the pre-Fall transformed Malakim just changed. . . . steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:36:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head. The single largest > failing of _all_ of the published adventures to date is that they aren't > the slightest bit interested in the player characters. They are either > designed to showcase some piece of rules contained in the book, to show > off a new additional Superior, or as a piece of someone else's fiction. Or all three. ;) > The first two problems - to showcase off new flashy rules or new Superiors > can be fixed very quickly, simply by bringing a swift, sudden, painful > end to this process. While demonstrating the rules is all fine and nice, > this should likely be confined to a short 1/4th page adventure seed rather > then an 11 page adventure (cough H&H cough) which cuts into the rest of > the book needlessly. Instead, the adventures should either be drastically > shortened, or written in a style that allows for freer, more interesting > play. Preferably shortened. There, problem solved. No more zillions of > new Superiors, no more bizarre rules to justify unplayable adventures. > Half of the headaches of In Nomine GM's disappear into the void. Hm. I like the new Superiors (except for the Secrets/Revelations ones), but using adventures to show them off isn't a very good idea, true. > The other problem - that the adventures aren't adventures at all, but > pieces of someone's fiction - is a much larger problem. It's very obvious > that this is exactly what the Demon Prince of Rock and Roll and Fall of > the Malakim actually is, and there is simply a thin veneer of game laid > over it to make it legitamite as an adventure game. Exactly what I've been thinking, though not nearly as clearly formulated. It feels like someone has come up with a really cool idea for something that could happend, and then made it into an adventure. And since the whole idea is based upon a specific event taking place, that will happen no matter what the PC:s do. And since the adventures are completely focussed on the events rather than the characters, what you get is a railroad. :( > B) The adventures focus entirely on the author's favorite NPCs, be this > Superiors or regular schmoes. Unfortunately, this does not make for a > good game, and the PCs are almost completely written out of the plot, and > thrown in as an afterthought. While good, solid NPCs are extremely > valuable, a plot which hinges on them is not. Very true. One is almost tempted (esp. with FotM) to kick the PC:s out completely, and let the players play NPC:s instead. Hmmm... that might actually be fun. > C) A 'neat plot twist' does not make for a campaign. It makes for a > good one shot. The basis of a campaign is long term character development > and character interaction, and the plot is what happens in the long term, > over dozens of sessions. The published adventures seem to completely miss > this fact. IMO, FotM (without having read it thoroughly (sp?), so take my opinion with a barrel of salt) is just one big plot twist, which the players can't affect, or even react to. Blech. > Personally, I find the Revelations Cycle to be a real bomb. It's > scattered, unfocused, rife with editing and writing errors, and > completely unsatisfying. In Nomine is at it's very best when it's focused > on one single subject - the IPG and the LR are the best supplements of the > entire lot to have been published so far. There has go to be a different > take on publishing the material other then the current approach. Anything > would probably be better. The problem is that SJG wants to publish adventures, which is an admirable goal, and that adventures don't sell. Solution: package the adventures together with some other stuff. Unfortunately, this has exactly some of the consequences you mention above, especially the feeling of things being scattered and unfocussed. For example, if I want the expanded info on all Superiors (when someone's going to create a character, for example) I'll have to bring -all- the damn books! Very annoying. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Comments on Max's treatment On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Steve Jessop wrote: > >One last thing - why was David able to soul-kill the Fallen demon when he > >first showed up to punish Max? Surely she wasn't daft enough to attack > >him, and he can't throw the first (fill in attack name here) without > >suffering dissonance. What happened? > > Um. How about 'David is a team player, and killing an angel counts as > striking the first blow.'? [slaps himself in the head] I hadn't even thought of that. It makes sense. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:53:54 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> IN - Boston Help? On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > Perhaps. But I still find it morally ambiguous at best, and apalling at > > worst. Terrorist actions are fairly despicable, no matter what the > > justification used. > > > Define a terrorist action. What's the difference between killing someone > with a car bomb and killing them with a Cruise missile? Or by firebombing > their cities from the air? (Aside from the fact that collateral damage is > likely to be much lower with a car bomb.) Terrorist action? Hmmm... There are a few definitions, obviously. The most obvious definition is that terrorist action is any action which depends on the concept of the "War of the Flea". This is a small group which begins "stinging" the group in power, hoping to make it over-react. An example is the actions the Sons of Liberty took in provoking the Boston "Massacre". Another is the IRA actions which led to Bloody Sunday. Terrorist action is also the attempt to spread terror through violence. Instead of applying force to meet a specific military objective, it is used to injure and intimidate. In this definition, it is obvious that governments (yes, even our own) have used terrorism in the past. However, most formal military action is not taken with terrorism in mind; terror is merely a desireable secondary objective. (The cruise missle attacks on the factories in the Middle East were not terrorist actions for instance; they were the self-destructive responses to terrorist actions that the terrorists were trying to provoke in the US.) > I believe violence to be inherently morally questionable. Sometimes, > however, the alternative is inherently morally wrong. And the methods that > are most effective are frequently the ones that create the greatest > infrastructural and collateral damage. Such is life, unfortunately. I completely agree with you on this one. > The general difference between so-called terrorism and 'civilised warfare' > is who has command of the taxation system, and who has to extort their > monies by other means. It generally bears little relation to who has right > on their side. No. Terrorism is aimed at civilians. "Civilized warfare" accidentally catches civilians. There is a difference, but not to the civilians caught in the action. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page. The Gaming Ghetto, at In Nomine: The Last Days, at Walking the Planes, at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:03:54 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Information Em wrote: >I would not like to play a character >wandering around in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment no matter how >interesting a turn of the century St. Petersburg, and amazing amounts of >nihilistic angst, happens to be. I would! I'd play a Bakunin-style anarchist! Yay. (As far as designing a plot around a specific set of characters go, I agree this is what a GM should be trying to do, for optimal player-enjoyment. However, any GM worth their salt can take a _good_ scenario and find ways to angle it to the specific PCs... Its the job of the scenario writer to think about how different PC types might interact with the plot and possibly include suggestions.) (OK, enough of that). I wanted to comment a bit on linear plots. It's fairly conventional wisdom that a linear plot is a Bad Thing. In most games, this is absolutely true and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of most players (and GMs in my case). I'm not so sure that it is with IN, as long as the linearity leaves enough room for PCs to resolve each situation in their own sweet way. If the emphasis of the game shifts to the resolution of conflicts (where a 'conflict' is anything from a team of Baal's finest to a mortal child who is being lured into shoplifting by its friends) then actually players seem to tolerate quite a lot of actively 'being pointed' in directions by NPCs, as long as they get a totally free rein on what to with with the situation which is then dumped on them. The thing the scenarios need to avoid is having one situation completely dependent on _how_ the PCs dealt with the last one. Stringing them from scene to scene doesn't seem, to me, to be as bad in IN as in many other games. At least, that is my experience. (I'll add that as a GM the games I have most enjoyed running have been where the way the plot ran was determined at least as much by players as by GM; I like winging it). I should probably try to illustrate this by example -- and I will as soon as I can think of one ;) ie. If the PCs are set up to meet a demon, then the plot should not require that the demon must survive the encounter. After all, the PC group is as likely to include someone like Sharon (malakite of fire) who will go ballistic at the slightest excuse, even in [ublic as it is to include an Elohite of Flowers who will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid that sort of thing. >B) The adventures focus entirely on the author's favorite NPCs, be this >Superiors or regular schmoes. Yes. This is very true. This also makes for poor fiction, IMO, so its no surprise that it doesn't make for great scenarios either. jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:30:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General > Exactly what I've been thinking, though not nearly as clearly formulated. > It feels like someone has come up with a really cool idea for something > that could happend, and then made it into an adventure. And since the > whole idea is based upon a specific event taking place, that will happen > no matter what the PC:s do. And since the adventures are completely > focussed on the events rather than the characters, what you get is a > railroad. :( I don't know - I feel it mostly with Fall of the Malakim. Here was this cool little story idea which might have made interesting reading, but there's this licensing agreement which clearly states _no fiction_. How does one get around this and publish one's stories? Convert it into an adventure. Voila. My impression is that the story was written way back when, and then suddenly, a few months before the book had to go to press, it was discovered that FotM sucked like the wind, because cute little stories don't convert to adventures very well. And then madness began... > The problem is that SJG wants to publish adventures, which is an admirable > goal, and that adventures don't sell. Solution: package the adventures > together with some other stuff. Unfortunately, this has exactly some of > the consequences you mention above, especially the feeling of things being > scattered and unfocussed. For example, if I want the expanded info on all > Superiors (when someone's going to create a character, for example) I'll > have to bring -all- the damn books! Very annoying. You're missing an adjective. The problem is that bad adventures don't sell. And SJG isn't known for publishing the newest and coolest adventures on the market. Chaosium and FASA don't seem to have this problem, mostly because the adventures, especially CoC ones, tend to be of very high quality. If Fall of the Malakim had been published as a stand alone module, would it have sold? Yes, to die hards. Not to anyone else. The consumer doesn't always buy crap. It required packaging it with 'must have' information for the GM - Superior Writeups - and the adventure comes as a rider. I can't help but feel more then mildly ripped off (or I would have if I would have paid for the book). The feeling I get is, "Here are these adventures which you HAVE to take with the other information, and this is the only way we'll sell them. So instead of addressing the problem - poor plotting, poor design, poor communication - we'll just _force_ the gamer to buy them." Here's another hint. If the large multi-book module can't stand on it's own without some other incentive to get the gamer to purchase it, it probably _isn't very good_. ** Not that the other information isn't good or well written or well thought out, because generally it is. But that's not the issue here. ** And yes, my essay style here is for the birds. No sleep = no sentence structure. - - Em ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #982 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.