From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Tue Oct 20 11:16:28 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 LAA03359 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:16:27 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA16326 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:49:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:49:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199810201549.KAA16326@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 #984 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Tuesday, October 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 984 In this digest: IN> A symbol question Re: IN> Max was shafted. IN> [IDEA/FICTION][Short] A Tree By The Roadside IN> Song of Possession IN> The First Malakim IN> Grigori Re: IN> Song of Possession IN> Balseraph (was Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial) IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Information Re: IN> Information Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Information Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> [IDEA/FICTION][Short] A Tree By The Roadside IN> Heroic Conversions IN> GURPS In Nomine IN> Apologies Re: IN> Constructive Criticism IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine Re: IN> Falling and Collision Damage IN> Re: IN- A symbol question Re: IN> Heroic Conversions Re: IN> Adventure Concepts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:21:48 -0500 From: Vz Subject: IN> A symbol question I have a bit of religious trivia knowledge that I need to find out about, and I cannot find it on the net. So I thought I refer to the grand pubas of the IN List. I need to find out about an old symbol. Not sure of the time period, but I think the early Middle Ages. Plus, I'm not sure whether it has any Christian reference or not. It's a derivation of the cross, or more to the point, two crossed connected along the vertical. If anyone has a clue as to what it is, where it's from, it's meaning, it's mythology, or whatever it may be, please e-mail me personally or post to the list. I doubt anyone would mind a little more happy, fun, religious trivia knowledge in their lives. Here's the best I can do with ASCII: XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX Thanks in advance, Vz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:28:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Knop Subject: Re: IN> Max was shafted. > Truthfully, I still don't think Max's behavior makes much sense. He > should be going through cycles of stoically taking everything the demons > do to him (and racking up dissonance) and then going berserk and killing > anything near him that he thinks is evil (and racking up dissonance for > attacking first). Instead, he just sits around and guilts. That might be the more "logical" behavior, but given Max's character I think what he did makes sense. He seems to be the sort who gets himself into trouble and then wrings his hands over it, hating himself and wishing it hadn't happened. - -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:48:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Chris Davies Subject: IN> [IDEA/FICTION][Short] A Tree By The Roadside There was once a man. He had once been a strong, muscular man with handsome features, and traces of these qualities could still be seen ... but they had been dampened by the weight of years that he had borne. Which was frightening, since he was only about thirty-five years old. He stumbled along a road one day, weak from hunger and thirst - -- which was the *point* of the exercise -- and on this particular day, the weakness caused him to miss his footing. He tripped, and then fell down beside a tree on the side of the road. For a second, he considered pushing himself upright ... but only for a second. He doubted that the muscles in his arms could take the strain. "That's it," he said in the common language of his people. "I've had it." No one responded to his statement. Unsurprisingly. "For the last six years I've been trying to find peace in these ... these *insane* disciplines. I've tried begging, fasting, and every other sort of self-mortification that can be found under the sun. I've read every single bit of religious scripture I can find, and nothing has given me the answers I needed." He took another deep breath. "And the worst part is, I know that even if I give up and go back home, I still won't be any closer to peace! Back then, when I lived in the palace -- I thought I was happy, but I was just bored. All the entertainments ... they were just distractions from the boredom. I wasn't really any happier there. So even if I somehow find the strength to get up, I have nowhere to go. Everywhere ... is pretty much the same. It's all illusions ..." Silence for a moment. "And I'm *TIRED*!" he shouted, tears almost beginning to flow from his eyes. "So rest, you big *dummy*." Siddhartha Gautama, only vaguely hearing the voice at his ear, collapsed even further against the fig tree. His breathing slowed, and became steady. His eyes closed. And he knew peace. And he understood. "Now, was that *so* hard?" Novalis asked of the man whose head was in her lap. There are many stories about the man who became the Buddha. This isn't meant to be a serious exploration of the origin of his philosophy or teachings. Does explain some things, though, doesn't it? Chris Davies, Advocate for Darkness, Part-Time Champion of Light. http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/banks/277/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:15:18 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Song of Possession >>>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.<<< Well, in a nutshell Vz, it's because that particular issue didn't come up during playtesting. I missed it, the Line Editor missed it, and all the other playtesters missed it. If you'd been a playtester and mentioned it, I'm sure I would have added a clarification about what happens if the body you're possessing dies, and thanked you for pointing it out (and probably made sure you got playtester credit and a comp copy to boot). Unfortunately, you weren't, you didn't, and it's now out of my hands. We're only human and sometimes we miss things. But we were very careful to clarify as many confusing points as we could and add new explanations and revisions where needed. If that one detail is the most serious ommission in the Liber Canticorum, I think it'll still be a pretty darn good book. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:15:30 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> The First Malakim >>>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?<<< That's one way to look at it. But as I said in an earlier post, it's not been established whether the first Malakim transformed consciously, or if it was an unconscious impulse that affected some angels and not others. I tend to see them as the most outraged and vengeful of the Host -- the angels that (for better or for worse) didn't even question for an instant who was right but just roared "How DARE you defy God Himself?!" and in that instant, were swept up in a wave of righteous fury that altered them at a fundamental level. Maybe it was a spontaneous phenomenon, maybe it was God's way of choosing the vanguard for the new army He'd need. This is probably an issue that can be safely left as Canon Doubt & Uncertainty. ;) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:29:58 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Grigori >>>Hang on, what about the appearence of the Grigori? I have the APG, and they started appearing AFTER the fall...<<< Uh, you're confused. The Grigori existed as a separate Choir, not as mutations of previous Choirs. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:04:15 -0500 From: Vz Subject: Re: IN> Song of Possession I really am not requesting a 2-book supplement for the LC, but it irks me at times when rules clarifications that have already been made don't get included in a supplement that is "supposed" to include these clarifications. I realize we live in a real world and that IN is an evolving system. But, this is going to sound severely wrong, I reserve a little bit of right to complain about it, like many do on this list. Although, most tend contribute a little something in addition to the complaint. *one of these days I'll sit down and read and reread everything. Maybe I'll even run that plot my brain has been daydreaming about, when I'm supposed to be studying. Stupid ADD. *maybe I'll even join the playtesters, and truly contribute something. Vz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:01:26 -0500 From: Vz Subject: IN> Balseraph (was Re: IN> The ruling in Michael's trial) >I don't think Lucifer is actually all that powerful. Well, actually he >is. But not really. See, my theory is that he has gained his power by >resonating the Symphony itself. Reality thinks he has power, so he can do >things. That is what the War is about. To prove that Lucifer's personal >world view as a Balseraph is true. Theoretically, the War could end >tomorrow if you could just show the Symphony that he's lying. >Richard "Mr. Uriel" Gant So what happens if a Balseraph's resonance changes the Symphony to such an extent that what the Balseraph has claimed is true? I mean is there a backlash for a Balseraph telling the truth, whether he made it so or not? Imagine a world where the lies of the greatest Balseraph, whether he is the greatest by true power level or by his manipulation of the events and the facts, is proven to be ultimately true in all things he believes. Wouldn't that be a frightening universe to live in? Aaaaahhhhh! What if Lucifer successfully used his resonance on God, and we never realized it? Nooooooooooo!!!!!!! *screams like a girl, and runs to find the nearest, deepest, darkest hole to wait out the end* Vz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:37:44 PDT From: "David Streeter" Subject: IN> Constructive Criticism Dresner said... > 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." Oh bollocks, Emily! No one is *forced* to buy IN supplements, or any roleplaying books at all. If a person buys a supplement because they want the extended write-ups, despite the fact that they don't like the adventures, then that is their decision. The "wasted pages" of the adventures should be just considered the opportunity cost of the purchase. Either the extended writeups (or whichever part of the supplement) are worth the cover price, and then they should buy it, or they aren't and the purchaser should vote with their feet. Considering you didn't pay any money for the book, it's hard to see how you got ripped off, or have the credibility to criticise. I've found the supplements worthwhile overall, and while I find some parts of them useless to me, I have the intelligence to realise that they may have value to someone who runs a different style of campaign to me. I've paid for all of my IN books (excepting a duplicate of the LR that I was sent accidentally) and have not begrudged a cent of what I forked out. I find it hypocritical that you're quick to write off IN stuff as "poorly researched" or "written in a hurry", and yet you yourself couldn't be bothered reading the playtest rules before posting to the In Nomine playtest boards (somewhere where you had a chance to actually contribute something more than scathing attacks at all and sundry). What made you so special that you could post a "shotgun submission" when the playtest rules specifically said you shouldn't?? Someone else wrote... > Subject: IN> I Agree with Ms. Dresner. scary. Possibly the same person wrote.. >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. I've been a member of a few gaming mailing lists, and by and large I've found that the strongest fans of a product are also likely to be its strongest critics. Why? Because only a fan would bother pushing the system to its limits. Only a fan would WANT the system to be able to model any situation they could dream up. >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. I agree with the last statement. SJG's strengths are in the game mechanic department, and IN is a bit of a departure from that. IMO mechanics heavy products allow the players and GM more creative room, whereas background-heavy products are more restrictive. For example, you could do a Conan meets Battletech scenario relatively easily in GURPS, but certainly not in In Nomine. There is nothing stopping you running IN (or any other game) as a diceless game. IMO the lack of a random element makes diceless games a bit of a GM ego-trip, but I understand that some people feel that rolling dice breaks the atmosphere. someone also said... >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. Crap. All game systems need to compromise between simplicity and realism. IN makes the simplicity more important than the realism. This list does a lot more than fix up mechanics (join inwo-list if you want that! :-) It offers possibilities for fleshing out the IN universe, provides clarifications for newbies, offers an outlet for fan fiction (something I'd prefer to see disappear, but hey, I'm certain that other list denizens enjoy reading them) another person claimed.. > What sells, unfortunately, often has little to do with product quality. > Just look at the computer hardware and software marketplace if you want > proof.... "Quality" is a relative term, IMHO. For me, the ideal In Nomine adventure requires minimal preparation, and railroads the players so I don't have to think too much when I'm GMing. For me, the ideal In Nomine supplement has a lot of fiction at the expense of gaming material, since I spend more time reading IN books as works of fiction than actually running IN as a game. I'm sure most gamers that buy IN aren't like me, though. SurturZ Habbalite of Factions, Angel of Constructive Criticism ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:36:26 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5vard_R=F8nne_Faanes?= Subject: Re: IN> Information On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > 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... :) Go ahead. Post the outline, Maybe I'll send my litle angels to sweden some time... :) Haavard *** Haavard R. Faanes (hoc@nvg.ntnu.no) http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc "Remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people." -Mr Garrison, South Park. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:00:57 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Information (apologies if this is boring and spammy -- I thiiink its stil on-topic) Neel wrote: >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. I see your point. In my game, I started with the intention of using a lot of conventions from standard sit-coms, but actually it has panned out into a much more simulation type of game. I still have a lot of pre-plotted events which are going to happen at specific times and places, but in play it all seems to work more easily into a smoother whole. But because players have read the book and are approaching it in terms of a satire/ comedy, they're more willing to accept the different genre conventions. They are angels. Of course lots of weird things happen to them. Of course their life-narratives will have a strong stylised component -- they are practically walking symbols; and this is actually a lot more pronounced in heaven, which seems to be a very ordered and stylised kind of place -- it's like the contrast between black+white and colour in the wizard of Oz. I'm a great fan of style, so I have to try to do these things, even if they totally fail to work :) (We did actually chat about this before we began, you'll be pleased to know - -- my GM style may fluctuate wildly beween fascism and anarchy but I'm not that bad!) >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. Right. But one of the differentiating factors about IN is (if you assume PC angels for the moment), that you can make some wide-ranging assumptions about PC motivations, even without knowing the main characters. If you know that they are angels, then you also know that you can have a senior angel or a superior giving them some orders, and that they are likely to fall into line. You will know that they will want to combat demonic activity when they get the chance. You will know that they will want (in differing degrees, granted) to help humans. These are assumptions you can't always make in other games. In CoC, you can probably assume PCs want to investigate things, but how many of those scenarios start with NPCs to whom the PCs are supposed to be related, in order to work them into the plot? In Traveller you can usually assume the PCs are in need of credit and will be prepared to take on any semi-legit activity in order to get it, but even so, how many Traveller scenarios are there in which the link between PCs and their patron is rather... weak? In IN you actually don't need to do that. It is nominally enough that a random mortal or angel turns up in need of help, and if necessary another angel asks the PCs to help. It is then totally IC for everyone that they will be interested. So you actually can railroad PCs into a scenario quite handily, I think, even without knowing details of the specific PCs. Now, with PC demons/ outcasts/ renegades it gets more tricky and I think it is pretty much vanishingly hard to write a good scenario which works equally well for all types of PC groups, unless it contains lots of extraneous information and side-plots for specific groupings (or unless you go the deus-ex-machina route and make the antagonist some kind of ethereal or renegade which is threatening everyone equally -- but I find that a cop out). jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:02:15 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism David Streeter wrote: > Oh bollocks, Emily! No one is *forced* to buy IN supplements, or any > roleplaying books at all. If a person buys a supplement because they > want the extended write-ups, despite the fact that they don't like the > adventures, then that is their decision. The "wasted pages" of the > adventures should be just considered the opportunity cost of the > purchase. Either the extended writeups (or whichever part of the > supplement) are worth the cover price, and then they should buy it, or > they aren't and the purchaser should vote with their feet. I agree with her as well, and if that scares you, tough. The unspoken part of her statement is, "...and if we continue to get product where half the space is taken up with that's no good, we'll stop buying the product." I know that's true for me, and I'd rather get IN material that I want than to spend my money on than something else. > I find it hypocritical that you're quick to write off IN stuff as > "poorly researched" or "written in a hurry", and yet you yourself > couldn't be bothered reading the playtest rules before posting to the In > Nomine playtest boards (somewhere where you had a chance to actually > contribute something more than scathing attacks at all and sundry). What > made you so special that you could post a "shotgun submission" when the > playtest rules specifically said you shouldn't?? I'm the one who said it was poorly researched, and I said so because it is. _The Final Trumpet_ was not available for playtest, at least not since I joined the list, so I didn't have that option. I have not helped playtest the Song or Tether books, because I have not been able to interest my friends to play the game; I just buy the books because I like the idea of the system. A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN is _because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:08:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Information On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > 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... :) > > Go ahead. Post the outline, Maybe I'll send my litle angels to sweden some > time... :) Never let it be said I take a lot of convincing. :) Okay, the idea I had at first was that the players would be demons (since that was what they wanted to play at the time) sent to Uppsala (which is where we live, if you hadn't guessed). Some basic background first: Uppsala is a university town, with a few hundred thousand people (including some suburbs and stuff) and around thirty thousand students or so. Landmarks include the cathedral, the old university building (now the different departments are all over the place), Carl Linne's garden (can't put the accent in the right place with this damn mail program:P) and the university library Carolina Rediviva, which holds, among other things, the Codex Argentus (the Silver Bible). It's little less than an hour by train north of Stockholm, Sweden's capital. Oh, we also have the three old burial mounds from Olden Days north of the town, called the Kings' Mounds. (They're in Gamla Upsala (Old Upsala), which was the original site for the cathedral. The story I've heard is that in those days Uppsala was called Östra Aros, while Old Upsala was simply Upsala. (The single p spelling is the old way to write it). The archbishop wanted to move the religious center to Östra Aros since most of the trade was there, but the Pope said that the cathedral was supposed to be in Upsala. Where the archbishop put Upsala was his problem, though, and so Östra Aros was renamed Upsala, and here we are.) Okay, now for the IN side of things. I've had Carolina Rediviva pegged for one of Yves' tethers from the beginning. I'm not sure about any others, though Linne´s garden is a good candidate for Flowers. There will be around half a dozen angels here, serving various superiors, including David (there's an MC gang here that IMC will be a lot more Davidesque), Novalis, Yves (of course) and Jean. The basic plot idea is that Uppsala has been dominated by angels for some time, and the last group of demons sent there got smashed pretty badly by forces unknown. Six were sent - one returned but is in deep Trauma with no signs of recovering, and one was in such a bad shape that there was nothing left to do but recycle his forces. The PC:s are to find out what happened. What Really Happened is that the demons managed to activate the Ethereal tether out by the Mounds, which is dedicated to the Aesir. The angels haven't found out yet - in fact, they didn't even know there were demons in town, though they are beginning to suspect... The two remaining demons - the last one is in Limbo - are an Impudite of Technology and a Balseraph of Death. The Imp is posing as a computer student, and has gone deep undercover since the debacle by the mounds. Her biggest problem is that one of Jean's Cherubim, who is posing as a member of the faculty, has taken a liking to her - he specializes in helping especially gifted students, and she is very good with computers. She knows he's a Cherub, and suspects that he's attuned himself to her, which makes her deathly afraid of doing anything suspicious. The Balseraph, on the other hand, has gone completely off the deep end. He's got quite a bit of Discord, including Paranoid. The only one he trusts (if just a little) is his servant, an old vampire. Together they have taken over an occult society and started to twist them into something much more sinister than a dozen old men who meet once a month to have some pseudo-pagan rituals. The vampire has no love for his master, and is planning to betray him at the first opportunity. That's the basic idea. Questions and comments are gladly accepted. 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: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:24:54 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism >A large part the reason I haven't gotten anyone to play IN is >_because_ of the kinds of problems I'm talking about. Could you be more specific? I know that when I touted the idea around, as soon as I mentioned it involved playing angels or demons and was fairly light-hearted everyone was quite keen, without any more information at all. (ie. If I have trouble getting my friends together for games, it is partly because I am badly organised, and partly because people have real lives.) I suspect that if the genre doesn't grab you, then the scenarios certainly won't. Or is it something else? jo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:04:49 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [IDEA/FICTION][Short] A Tree By The Roadside Very nice. Several times, people on this list have wondered about how to relate IN to eastern religion, but you are the first to do anything concrete about it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:04:39 +0100 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Heroic Conversions Something else I've been meaning to ask. As there appear to be a fair number of players on these lists with knowledge of the Hero System (tm), are any of you playing IN using those rules? If so, I'd be interested/gratefull to look at how you've converted the game. (Off-list of course :)) - -- Julian jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:10:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> GURPS In Nomine The current talk on the list about how to distribute IN information through the books made me think of this -- I gather from the SJG web pages that, at the moment, GURPS IN is a serious consideration, but still very remote. While it is thus conveniently far off, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let the GURPS In Nomine book gather together *ALL* the various pieces of mechanics, e.g. for Saints & Sorcerors. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:42:33 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: IN> Apologies I'm having a bit of ISP trouble at home, and all my IN stuff is at home, so it could be a couple of days before I can post all that stuff I promised. Sorry. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:01:44 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Hart, Joanna wrote: > Could you be more specific? I know that when I touted the idea around, as > soon as I mentioned it involved playing angels or demons and was fairly > light-hearted everyone was quite keen, without any more information at all. > (ie. If I have trouble getting my friends together for games, it is partly > because I am badly organised, and partly because people have real lives.) > > I suspect that if the genre doesn't grab you, then the scenarios certainly > won't. Or is it something else? The concept of IN hasn't grabbed my companions like it's grabbed me. When I eagerly cast around for players, I tended to get a response along the lines of, "If you get some others to join, I will, too." This tends to last until they catch a look at the core book and realize what a mess the rules are. (Quick: When a Celestial is corporeally killed, it says that they go into Trauma unless they have another vessel "available right then". Is the definition of "available right then" in the section on Combat, or Death and Trauma, or Vessels? Answer below.) This opinion hasn't been improved by my wife, who's looked through all the books, explaining the glitches in later products. The whole idea of playing IN is treated with a fair amount of derision now. Much like actually using the game system that came with Space: 1889. I have now resorted to purchasing a second copy of the core book that I gave to the most persuasive member of our gaming circle. If he likes the concept enough to help talk others into playing, I may finally get this off the ground. If not, the hope of playing IN is probably dead. J. Michael Neal Answer: None of the above. It's in the description the Body Bag artifact, and it basically says that "available right then" doesn't mean what you'd logically think it means. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:18:00 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Adventure Concepts If SJG is going to continue to publish adventures for IN, one decision that I think has to be made is that most of them are not going to be suitable for both angelic and demonic groups. This, I think, is where some of the problems with the currently available scenarios lies. This universal applicability hamstrings a lot of ideas and forces the vagueness that is so prevalent. It also is the source of some of the ridiculous situations that come up. Take bit of _The Final Trumpet_ where the PCs are supposed to rescue Max. Up to this point, canon has emphasized how mysterious and horrible the Lower Hells are, but now the writers are forced to accept the idea that a group of angels can manage to get in, get to Kobal's hideout, and leave with battered Malakite in tow. Huh? From previous descriptions, a _demonic_ party would have an epic time accomplishing this; for angels, it's right out. It also prevents woking in too much detail with NPCs. Any person important to the storyline is going to have to be someone that both a Balseraph of Factions and a Malakite of the Sword are going to deal with. I'm sure that it's possible to do this, but it both limits the possibilities and dramatically increases the amount of space that needs to be used to handle the different approaches. If this space isn't used, the result is going to continue to be the kind of sketchy scenario outlines we've gotten, rather than something that won't require so much work that I might as well have started from scratch. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:12:54 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> GURPS In Nomine Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > The current talk on the list about how to distribute IN information > through the books made me think of this -- > > I gather from the SJG web pages that, at the moment, GURPS IN is > a serious consideration, but still very remote. While it is > thus conveniently far off, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let > the GURPS In Nomine book gather together *ALL* the various pieces > of mechanics, e.g. for Saints & Sorcerors. This is a good suggestion, and I think it will be followed. The reason this will be possible is a lot of the mechanics of GURPS are included in the basic book and the Compendia. I especially hope Sorcerers will be less of a kludge. That said, you may still end up with things being cut for space. You want to convey as much of the game world as you can without spending time on side issues. If that means you give an extra page to David and one less for Saints... well, so be it. Of course, GURPS In Nomine is slated at 160 to 192(!) pages. Yow! Even if you knock out half a dozen pages for conversion notes and other stuff, that's gonna be a hefty book. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | 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, 20 Oct 1998 10:56:39 -0400 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Falling and Collision Damage Julian Breen wrote: > >Has anybody got any house rules that they have used for falling >damage/vehicle impacts, etc? I use the table of damage values in the back of the Feng Shui rulebook. The only thing you need to do to make it a good fit is to reduce the damage taken by the character's Strength, rather than his Toughness. This is because characters in both games can take around 30 points of damage before breaking. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:17:21 PDT From: "Bartholomew Hammerly" Subject: IN> Re: IN- A symbol question I have a bit of religious trivia knowledge that I need to find out about, >and I cannot find it on the net. So I thought I refer to the grand pubas >of the IN List. I need to find out about an old symbol. Not sure of the >time period, but I think the early Middle Ages. Plus, I'm not sure whether >it has any Christian reference or not. > >It's a derivation of the cross, or more to the point, two crossed connected >along the vertical. If anyone has a clue as to what it is, where it's >from, it's meaning, it's mythology, or whatever it may be, please e-mail me >personally or post to the list. I doubt anyone would mind a little more >happy, fun, religious trivia knowledge in their lives. It's a Greek Orthodox cross. The name escapes me at the moment. Bart Hammerly Calabim of Fire "Time is the fire in which we burn." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Kim Foster Subject: Re: IN> Heroic Conversions At 02:04 PM 10/20/98 +0100, you wrote: >Something else I've been meaning to ask. > >As there appear to be a fair number of players on these lists with >knowledge of the Hero System (tm), are any of you playing IN using those >rules? If so, I'd be interested/gratefull to look at how you've >converted the game. > >(Off-list of course :)) I hate to be a "me to" but I would like to see any conversions that have been come up with. I know violence doesn't solve all problems... But it sure feels good! Felicia:DS3:Vampire Savior ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 98 11:47 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts >If SJG is going to continue to publish adventures for IN, one decision >that I think has to be made is that most of them are not going to be >suitable for both angelic and demonic groups. This, I think, is where >some of the problems with the currently available scenarios lies. This >universal applicability hamstrings a lot of ideas and forces the >vagueness that is so prevalent. I'd agree with that, but take it a step further. (Elizabeth and I were discussing this a lot last night, so I'm about to dump a lot of my thinking on the problem....) I think even the notion of plots that are simply "angelic" or "demonic" doesn't necessarily work -- the interests of different Superiors, and to a lesser extent, the wide-ranging abilities of different Choirs/Bands, make it hard to write a "tight" adventure scenario. Yes, it can be done, but it excludes a large number of possible plots that are rather Superior-specific, or ones that can easily be spoiled by one or another attunement or resonance. > If this space isn't >used, the result is going to continue to be the kind of sketchy scenario >outlines we've gotten, rather than something that won't require so much >work that I might as well have started from scratch. I think this is going to keep happening as long as adventures are "broad-spectrum" in any fashion. Frankly, I'm not all that partial to great amounts of detail in adventures -- I'm going to have to tailor them anyway. I much prefer "plot seeds" of a page or two in length to 10-page fleshed-out adventures. What I look for in an adventure is a couple interesting NPCs, a situation, and maybe a setting, plus perhaps some suggested ways of resolving the situation. - --- There appear to be several different approaches to matching PCs and adventures: 1) supply PCs for each adventure 2) use "generic" adventure plots that will fit a wide variety of PCs 3) use tailored plots that focus on one specific type of PC as particularly important (and may exclude ones with "plot-killer" powers) 4) have players have several PCs, and the GM decides which are suitable to a given adventure Of these, I don't think 1) is feasible for anything except one-shots, really, unless the same PCs are used in a number of adventures forming a campaign. And I don't think a lot of players would go for that.... 2) is more or less what we've got now (ignoring for the moment how well-executed it's been). Personally, I find it too restrictive of plot types, and I don't think it necessarily lends itself well to the kinds of plots IN is *really* suited to -- subtle moral dilemmas and character evolution. I'm somewhat partial to 3), but it would probably require having a big bunch of short plots to choose from, and accepting the fact that 50-75% or more may not be applicable to a particular PC group. The original Ars Magica introduced a variant of 4), a notion I've always found intriguing, but never tried in a campaign. This approach also combines well with 3), making many more of the plots useful. The downside to this one appears to be selling the players on playing multiple character concepts, and on slower individual character advancement. This is clearly a hard sell to munchkin types, but I'm not sure that matters much to the IN audience. I'd be particularly interested in hearing if anyone's tried this routinely, either in IN or another game. - ---Walter ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #984 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.