From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Oct 19 18:18:19 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 SAA06172 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:18:19 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA28961 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:49:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:49:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199810192249.RAA28961@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 #983 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 983 In this digest: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General IN> Shopping for Archangels Re: IN> Song of Possession Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> Credits...where was she? IN> I Agree with Ms. Dresner. Re: IN> summonable artifacts Re: IN> Michael and Malakim Re: IN> Information Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> Information Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> Credits...where was she? Re: IN> Information Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General Re: IN> Michael and Malakim Re: IN> Michael and Malakim Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General IN> Falling and Collision Damage RE: IN> Falling and Collision Damage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:11:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > 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." I would have liked the David/Lilith/Lilim writeups, but disliked the LA writeup and FotM adventure; I'm sure of this from what I've heard. I would have really liked the Michael/Baal/Kobal/Malphas/Khalid/Magog writeups (if only because there's so *many* of them - and I've got a Kobalian demon player right now), and not gotten much use out of the Final Trumpet adventure. So I bought FT and not FotM. The adventure can be run without that whole stupid "a Malakim fell" twist (which is SO full of holes that my players would attack me if I tried pulling it on them), if you rework it a bit. So I don't feel ripped off. I wish there was some way to get just the David and Lilith and Lilim/Geasa writeups, though. At least some of the Geasa ones are online. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:11:59 PDT From: "Martin Arnold" Subject: IN> Shopping for Archangels Shopping for Archangels Here we go, I couldn't resist… Blandine: First edition Sandman comic, signed by Neil Gaiman; a nightlight, security blanket, teletubbies tape singing lullabies; rarest copy of Cure singing 'Lullaby'; a cot David: Season ticket to FA cup final; a round of drinks for the local Dockers one Friday evening after a hard weeks labour. Spinal Tap's stage set. A flat in an inner city tower block Dominic: some new robes, solid gold scales, statue of liberty. Eli: a home studio set-up, artist's tools, Jimi's guitar (or something similar!) Gabriel: fireworks, firelighters, zippo's, duty free cigarettes, cigars, and a copy of the Koran. A trumpet. A french horn. Janus: antacids ~g~, Harley Davidson, Ferrari, scalextric, laxatives, Paganini violin solo's (or some whizzkid metal guitar dude!). Jean: digital TV, tickets to see Tomorrows World live. Jordi: Goldfish credit card, sponsor-an-animal donations, aquariums, and rare pets. Jungle (music). Laurence: swords, suit of armour, membership to a shooting club, martial arts/weapons lessons, enrolment at military school. QE2. Marc: stocks and shares. (Brewsters millions-esque plots spring to mind. Something about not being able to having to lose all the money and not actually make a profit!) Pensions, mortgages, market stalls, antiques. Michael: portrait of Churchill, guns, airfix model kits! Novalis: flowers and more flowers. Rare John Lennon recordings, expensive sunglasses. Yves: setting up a trust fund, happiness! Rare books. Totally inaccurate I know! Marnie - playing the 'may I help you riff!' ICQ on 19005332... 'Men plan, God laughs' ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 98 13:23 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Song of Possession [Vz, about David's comments on Song of Possession in the Liber Canticorum.] >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. Hopefully not the latter -- completely changing a published game is something to be done only in the most critical cases. Supplements are really for adding depth, not torqueing the game around. > 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". That's essentially what the LC is trying to do -- be the final say on Songs in In Nomine. All of the original ones are included to provide updates and clarifications, so that they'll all be in one place. Unfortunately, you can't always manage to catch *every* little problem or ambiguity. People constantly find new holes, or new ways to misinterpret the author's intent. >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. The LC should be pretty much what you're asking for -- that was part of its design intent, I know. As far as splitting it up into two supplements, or adding new clarifications, well, there are unfortunately realities in the gaming business, one of which is you actually have to *publish* books, at some point. There are always new ideas, and clarifications of old ones, that have to be compromised or eliminated in the process of running the business side of things, and getting books into print. At some point, the editors and publisher have to bite the bullet and say, "That's good enough, even if it's not perfect -- ship it." Or they're out of business. As anyone who writes can probably tell you, there are always ways the manuscript could be made just a little better.... Which isn't to say that I think this decision has been made at the correct time in all cases -- sometimes the business aspects outweigh the desire to get it right. Unfortunately, the gaming business is poor enough right now that there's little leeway. Put the product out too quickly, and people will hate it and not buy the next one. Put it out too late, and you've ruined your cash flow and you're out of business. So far, SJGames has managed to survive the current industry crisis, and I, for one, would very much like it to continue to do so. But it's not easy. Therefore, at this point in the publication cycle, LC is mostly fixed in stone, and only *very* minor changes can be made for very good reason. (For example, contradictions with other books, or errors in fact.) It might be that making this particular clarification wouldn't cause any schedule disruption, but on the other hand, adding a sentence or two might cause all kinds of minor shifts in the page layout, which could easily consume substantial time from the layout editor. Splitting LC into two books at this point would be starting all the editorial and layout process over nearly from scratch, and it would be another 3-4 months before such a beast could reach the stores. I'd rather have it sooner, rather than later, myself. If there's really enough good material for another Songbook (which I'd doubtful of at the moment -- maybe 1/2 of one at best), then another one could be published later, as was done in GURPS with Magic and Grimoire -- there's not really that much critical organization in LC would make it much better to publish it as a 2-volume set rather than one book now, and maybe a later supplement. In this case, I think two books is two books.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:28:27 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Anders Gabrielsson > >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >> Add to this the fact that celestials shouldn't normally regard corporeal >> death as more than an inconvenience, and the bulk of the tools in >> the adventure-writer's toolkit are gone. (Most adventures have fairly >> generic hooks, since the writer doesn't know what sorts of PCs would >> fit -- but IN has filed off the most commonly used hooks.) >> >> I think this could be a good thing, if it encouraged adventures of >> sorts not normally seen in gaming (say comedies, or genuine moral >> dilemmas, or day-in-the-life-of stories), but in practice what we >> seem to be getting is either poor plotting or egregious railroading. > >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. I basically agree, except that I think that once you shift focus from "what happens next?" to "what are these people doing?" you can pretty much neglect the uberplot without difficulty. In my game, in the background there are huge things afoot -- Asmodeus and Malphas have turned the bulk of the princes into open rebellion against Lucifer, and Baal is trying to steal a piece of God to defeat the rebel demons, and there is apparently a cabal in Heaven helping him. None of this matters at all. I could throw it all out and the game would be largely unaffected. What's important is Jozer and Evi's attempts to get the other to switch sides, about Jason's efforts to bring humans to their destiny, and the students at Hoycyr's school of martial arts. >Exactly how this should be done, I'm not sure. Obviously, creating >suitable characters become much more important. Great care should be taken >in the design of PC:s and NPC:s alike, and their relationships. > >I think limiting the scope of the game, at least in regard to the number >of characters, will enhance this greatly. If the same people keep showing >up again and again and again, the relationships between them become more >important. This was an explicit design decision in my game, and is probably the smartest GMing decision I've ever made. >Taking some ideas from soaps might provide inspiration. They have a >limited number of important characters, and their relations to each other >keep changing. They are typically strongly fixed in locale. The plot is >mostly concentrated around the characters and how they relate to each >other, as opposed to most major movies, where the plot is usually the >important thing. I'm all in favor of One thing that would be REALLY useful is some more stuff about the social institutions angels and demons work within. Big stuff about an aa's attitude's are less useful to a GM than the little tiny details that mark the difference between a cardboard world and something that feels real and lived-in. Here's an example: it's fairly frequent for the Divine Inquisition to come in after something big happens to figure out just what happened. Now, besides the fact that Judgement's angels usually come in threes, we as GMs have very little to go on. Things that would really help me as GM make an appearance of the Inquisition come alive are details on their rituals and actual practice. Are there any prayers commonly said before the angels begin a questioning session? What standard line of questions do the triads use to make sure that they haven't been cleverly misdirected? Do they allow spectators? What formal phrases and rituals mark the opening and closing of a questioning session? How are appeals handled? What is the form of a sentencing? An example: Dominic is said to believe in Christianity. It would become a detail vividly brought to life if every triad meeting is opened with, say, the Lord's prayer (or some other New Testament verse). I have a sample set of standard inquisitorial questions at home, and I'll post them to the list when I get back (this post is being written at lunch). There's a real difference in player reaction when you seem able to rattle it right off the top of your head. :) - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 98 13:34 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Credits...where was she? >Just got The Final Trumpet, and I noticed something... > >Elizabeth McCoy did some additional material, so where was her name in >the credits? I didn't see her name there. To tell you the truth, I don't recall that Elizabeth did much but editorial work on FT. She had a fair amount of stuff in FotM, but little or nothing in FT. I know she only got her LE copy of FT (not the multiple copies authors get), and this didn't surprise her. FT *ought* to have her listed as Line Editor, though. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:36:49 -0700 From: Michael Daisey Subject: IN> I Agree with Ms. Dresner. What she said. I have put IN on suspension in my buying circle...after H+H I haven't gotten naything more, and without a significant shift in content I won't do so in the future. This is a serious problem. If the _mailing list_ of diehard fans are complaining about a systematic failure of material to be playable, the average Joe Gamer is going to be far more apathetic and/or upset when the supplements just don't cut it. Adding this to the combat problems, the linear progression/cap on character development and the system's apparent inabillity to model simple scenarios and one has to wonder what is left. For me, I love the basic premise, some of the background material and the cinematic feel. I think the project should have been diceless (or as close as possible) from the start, and for SJG IN is as close as they've ever come, being so stat-heavy in their GURPS lines. Further comments? Please, do. But I hope we don't have a round of that "don't be negative, it's our game, make it better" BS. All we ever do on this list is kludge together fixes. Were the material better assembled, this would not be necessary. - -- Michael Daisey - ---- "Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:44:08 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> summonable artifacts CA Smith wrote: > I was under the impression that the summonable feature, summons the > artifact, there is no mention of unsummoning it.The Scabbard attunement of > Laurence however allows the angel to place weapons into, and pull out of, a > kind of "null space" at will 'Summonable' specifically mentions dispelling (i.e. send it back) as well. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:46:37 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Michael and Malakim David Edelstein wrote: > >>>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 is very clever. Listen to him carefully, for he speaks the Truth. ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:53:54 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Information "Hart, Joanna" wrote: > >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. Eep! I got very frightened when I actually began reading him -- he seemed to start off reasonable, and then he got really frightening when he began to explain just what he meant by "freedom." >(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. It depends on what you are trying to do. In my game, I'm continually fighting to avoid plotting the events in the game. This is because one of the doors I want to leave open for the PCs to argue about is how active a part God takes in the world. If the characters can identify neat narrative arcs in their lives, then this takes the wind right out of the sails of that particular argument. If instead what happens is more messy, with all the loose ends one sees in Real Life(tm), then there's more scope for disagreement. So linear plotting is something I avoid at all costs, in this particular game. In a different game -- say a high-tension Armageddon-is-now game -- I'd have a completely different opinion, though. >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 public as it is to include an >Elohite of Flowers who will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid that sort >of thing. I think you're correct in this point, but I also think this makes it impossible to write "adventures" as they are widely understood. See below. A good story has a plot that comes from conflicting necessities on the part of the protagonists and antagonists, and the more deeply the necessities are embedded in the character the better the story. However, most adventure writers are in the difficult position of not knowing *anything* about the main characters (the PCs), and must usually resort to very generic hooks -- like survival. This isn't going to make for a terribly compelling story, so instead game writers create NPCs whose dramatic necessities are tied into the plot. This makes the action arise more naturally, but it has the tremendous downside that it turns the PCs into spectators of the action. For an interactive, collaborative activity like rpgs, this is BAD BAD BAD! The only real solution (such as it is) is to abandon the whole concept of an adventure -- with a clearly defined setup, continuations, and resolution -- and instead work on scenarios. Come up with detailed characters, and how they view the world, and instead of scripting what happens, offer a set of possible continuations. I'll post an example RSN. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 98 13:54 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General [Em:] >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. It's not clear to me that *good* adventures necessarily sell, either. (And I *will* claim SJGames has published a few.) Chaosium and FASA may be able to sell adventures more because of the particular market segment their games attract, than because their adventures are necessarily better than anyone else's. (Not having read adventures by either publisher, I can't address that.) After all, TSR managed to sell adventures for many years, even though a lot of them were complete garbage. That was due to a number of factors, I think, some of which had to do with their market's demographics. TSR's eventual demise wasn't due to a "flight to quality", but a collapse of the gaming marketplace in general, probably combined with bad business decisions. What sells, unfortunately, often has little to do with product quality. Just look at the computer hardware and software marketplace if you want proof.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:02:08 +0100 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) At 13:28 19/10/98 -0400, you wrote: > > >I have a sample set of standard inquisitorial questions at home, and >I'll post them to the list when I get back (this post is being written >at lunch). I'll look forwards to it. The two questions I _always_ have the triads ask at some point in every interrogation are: Are you currently dissonant or discordant? Do you know any other angel who is currently dissonant or discordant? (For some reason, this makes PCs paranoid when they actually do know another angel who is dissonant ;) ). jo - -- Jo's (desperately out of date) homepage --> http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/index.html Jo's (bland, plagiarised and devoid of ideas) IN page --> http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN.html - -- ** Some of the above is indubitably true ** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 98 14:19 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Information >However, most adventure writers are in the difficult position of not knowing >*anything* about the main characters (the PCs), and must usually resort to >very generic hooks -- like survival. Which is one reason why some published adventures (I believe a number of Paranoia ones are among them) use PCs designed for the adventure. Unfortunately, that works well in a convention or other "one-shot" game, but not well where the players want continuing characters. >This isn't going to make for a terribly compelling story, so instead game >writers create NPCs whose dramatic necessities are tied into the plot. This >makes the action arise more naturally, but it has the tremendous downside that >it turns the PCs into spectators of the action. For an interactive, >collaborative activity like rpgs, this is BAD BAD BAD! It's possible to sidestep this, as long as the PCs can be made to care about the NPCs, and the NPCs can't solve their own problems directly. Motivating NPCs through a plot is relatively simple, and you need only make sure the PCs will follow them. (Rather than blow them away, which has been known to happen....) Having said this, I will say that I generally run my games in a fully free-form fashion, and that I don't much like pre-plotted adventures. My main problem with pre-plotted adventures has less to do with railroading (which is often, but not always, a consideration), and more to do with the high probability of plot divergence as PCs go on. No plot survives contact with the PCs.... The longer and more complex the adventure, the more likely the later parts will be useless as the PCs follow unanticipated paths. Unfortunately, this problem leads some authors (and GMs) to use railroading tactics. >The only real solution (such as it is) is to abandon the whole concept >of an adventure -- with a clearly defined setup, continuations, and >resolution -- and instead work on scenarios. Come up with detailed >characters, and how they view the world, and instead of scripting >what happens, offer a set of possible continuations. I'll post an >example RSN. I actually wrote an adventure that mixed the two ideas somewhat. "Sahudese Fire Drill", which was published in GURPS Fantasy Adventures (now out of print, so I'm not plugging it!) used situational elements, NPCs and their motivations/goals, and a series of non-linear scenes on three different, but interwoven, plot threads. It even had a resolution of sorts (actually several of them). However, it partly depended on the particular situation being set up, and I'm not sure if it's possible to do this sort of plot model routinely with enough variation to keep it interesting. Just for the record, GURPS Fantasy Adventures did not sell particularly well, even though it was really the first adventure book done for GURPS in that genre, and therefore wasn't working into a particularly prejudiced market. And despite the fact that it included one *truly perfect* adventure (mine!).... I've had notions about writing more non-linear adventures, but there's not much market for them, and there are other demands on my writing time. (I also suspect that IN will be less likely to publish adventures in the future, given their generally bad reception. Which I tend to agree with, for the most part.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:28:47 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Emily Dresner wrote: > 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: Let me add one more, to keep riding one of _my_ pet peeves: E) They're poorly researched. Take the Third Trumpet, from FT. Anyone who looked briefly at a map of Africa would have known to make some changes, like having the Tyrant's troops guarding the Niger river basin to prevent the refugees' return rather than the Nile. Anyone who dug a little more would hesitate before having large hordes of refugees walk 1500+ miles across rugged, arid terrain to reach a place that has less food and as much conflict than the one they left. Or that refugees who did reach Sudan might suddenly reactivate their brain and not go north across the Sahara to get to Egypt, but south to Uganda, which is closer as well as being one of the few areas in Africa that actually has a food surplus. These kinds of errors give the feeling that the adventures were just thrown together in a haphazard fashion. I end up feeling that the thought process was, "We need to have an adventure in this book, so quick, get something written." Given the way that the product is promoted, I suspect this feeling is wrong. But that just leaves me wondering why more care wasn't taken with what was meant to be the core of the book. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:49:04 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Credits...where was she? At 1:34 PM -0400 10/19/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >>Just got The Final Trumpet, and I noticed something... >> >>Elizabeth McCoy did some additional material, so where was her name in >>the credits? I didn't see her name there. Oh, the mixup that had Malphas by me and GR Cogman both -- that was a mixup. I didn't have anything to do with Malphas, so naturally my name shouldn't be on the front-page as anything but LE. Which it does. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:16:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Information On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > The only real solution (such as it is) is to abandon the whole concept > of an adventure -- with a clearly defined setup, continuations, and > resolution -- and instead work on scenarios. Come up with detailed > characters, and how they view the world, and instead of scripting > what happens, offer a set of possible continuations. I'll post an > example RSN. I just remembered that this is pretty much how "adventures" are set up in GURPS Goblin. They call them "imbroglios" rather than adventures, which is a nice touch, IMO. They have a number of characters with detailed descriptions and some things that these characters are trying to achieve, some ways of getting the PC:s involved, some possible events along the way, and some possible outcomes. This is the way IN scenarios should be done, IMO. Actually, it's pretty similar to the way I've been thinking of setting up the Uppsala-based IN campaign that I'll start up Real Soon (TM)... I could post a short outline (very short) if anyone is interested. No? Well, that's what I thought... :) 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 21:23:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Eeyore wrote: > Let me add one more, to keep riding one of _my_ pet peeves: > > E) They're poorly researched. Take the Third Trumpet, from FT. Anyone who > looked briefly at a map of Africa would have known to make some changes, like > having the Tyrant's troops guarding the Niger river basin to prevent the > refugees' return rather than the Nile. Anyone who dug a little more would > hesitate before having large hordes of refugees walk 1500+ miles across rugged, > arid terrain to reach a place that has less food and as much conflict than the > one they left. Or that refugees who did reach Sudan might suddenly reactivate > their brain and not go north across the Sahara to get to Egypt, but south to > Uganda, which is closer as well as being one of the few areas in Africa that > actually has a food surplus. > > These kinds of errors give the feeling that the adventures were just thrown > together in a haphazard fashion. I end up feeling that the thought process was, > "We need to have an adventure in this book, so quick, get something written." > Given the way that the product is promoted, I suspect this feeling is wrong. > But that just leaves me wondering why more care wasn't taken with what was meant > to be the core of the book. With risk of being flamed, I have to say that I find this kind of errors quite common in American products when it comes to areas outside the US and its closest neighbours. There are, of course, many exceptions, but often material that could have been immensely improved by the simple act of looking things up in an encyclopaedia is let through. I'm already cringing at all the possible errors that will probably be in WW's Viking supplement... not that I will buy it. :) I'm sure they'll even put -horns- on their helmets! As usual... :-/ 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 15:11:34 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Information (was Re: IN- In Nomine: Paranoia) Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > With risk of being flamed, I have to say that I find this kind of errors > quite common in American products when it comes to areas outside the US > and its closest neighbours. There are, of course, many exceptions, but > often material that could have been immensely improved by the simple act > of looking things up in an encyclopaedia is let through. I'm already > cringing at all the possible errors that will probably be in WW's Viking > supplement... not that I will buy it. :) I'm sure they'll even put -horns- > on their helmets! As usual... :-/ Hey! Here in Minnesota, we take the horns on our Vikings' helmets very seriously! It's certainly better than a 'G'. (Non-American readers are supposed to be lost at this point.) But what you say is true. It's why my newsweekly of choice (The Economist) is British rather than American. But in the gaming industry, the problem is more generally just the research in general. Some companies, particularly Chaosium, do other parts of the world pretty well. The ones that botch foreign countries often can't get the local stuff right, either. White Wolf took Milwaukee, which is not only very German in character but is the only major US city to ever elect an officially Socialist mayor, and decided that it was run by a bunch of conservative Romans. Those who aren't going to look at a map when writing aren't going to look at a map. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:23:30 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General Walter Milliken wrote: > It's not clear to me that *good* adventures necessarily sell, either. > (And I *will* claim SJGames has published a few.) Chaosium and FASA may > be able to sell adventures more because of the particular market segment > their games attract, than because their adventures are necessarily > better than anyone else's. (Not having read adventures by either > publisher, I can't address that.) Chaosium, at least, sells because they consistently produce good stuff. I suspect that the specifics of the CoC game world tend to bring in better writers than most companies get, for starters. But most of the campaign length adventures avoid most of the problems mentioned. _The Masks of Nyarlathotep_, perhaps the best of the bunch, provides all of the settings where things take place, but the PCs don't need to visit them in a particular order. There's also good help for the GM if the players have missed some important clues. Granted, it does have the advantage that CoC characters are supposed to drop like flies. One of their other high quality pieces _does_ railroad the PCs, but it isn't called _Horror on the Orient Express_ for nothing. And it still does a fine job at laying out the various alternatives in later segments in case odd things have happened. IN stuff might not want to follow this path, though. Doing these adventures right is a big project. Both of those mentioned above have just the adventure and nothing else; MoN is about twice as thick a book as the pieces of Revelations Cycle, and HotOE was boxed and was $35.00 when I picked it up seven years ago. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:07:06 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Michael and Malakim In a message dated 10/19/98 1:03:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, AmadanSJG@compuserve.com writes: << Actually, so far the _only_ canonical example of an angel becoming another Choir is the first appearance of the Malakim. >> Hang on, what about the appearence of the Grigori? I have the APG, and they started appearing AFTER the fall... - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John T Perkowski, Ofanite of Arcade Games MASTER of Attunements (Go ahead, Gimme a word and some details, and in 24 hours, you'll get yerself some attunements). "There is danger all around you." "I obfuscate!" "This is In Nomine you idiot!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:53:30 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Michael and Malakim At 5:07 PM -0400 10/19/98, Akumsa@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 10/19/98 1:03:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >AmadanSJG@compuserve.com writes: > ><< Actually, so far the _only_ canonical example of an angel becoming another > Choir is the first appearance of the Malakim. >> > >Hang on, what about the appearence of the Grigori? I have the APG, and they >started appearing AFTER the fall... But they were created as Grigori -- they weren't any other Choir before. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:16:06 +0300 From: Yossi Gurvitz Subject: Re: IN> IN Adventure Structure & the Line in General At 23:23 19/10/98 , you wrote: >IN stuff might not want to follow this path, though. Doing these adventures >right is a big project. Both of those mentioned above have just the adventure >and nothing else; MoN is about twice as thick a book as the pieces of >Revelations Cycle, and HotOE was boxed and was $35.00 when I picked it up seven >years ago. ...and it's worth every cent. I've read many games and adventures, and this one is simply the best one I've run into. Yours, Yossi ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:44:09 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Falling and Collision Damage Has anybody got any house rules that they have used for falling damage/vehicle impacts, etc? - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:48:00 -0700 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Falling and Collision Damage First thing I thought when I saw the subject line of this message was that becoming a demon was punishment enough-they didn't need to take damage from hitting the ground in Hell. -----Original Message----- From: Julian Breen [mailto:jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 3:44 PM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: IN> Falling and Collision Damage Has anybody got any house rules that they have used for falling damage/vehicle impacts, etc? - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #983 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.