From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Oct 21 16:16:51 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 QAA00362 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:16:51 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA20049 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:40:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:40:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199810212040.PAA20049@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 #988 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, October 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 988 In this digest: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: RE: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Re: IN> Jews in In Nomine Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) IN> Cherubic attunement Q's IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #987 Re: IN> Adventure Concepts IN> On Religion IN> On Balance IN> [ADMIN] Re: Top Attorneys On Retainer Re: IN> Constructive Criticism Re: IN> Cherubic attunement Q's IN> On Advancement Re: IN> [ADMIN] Re: Top Attorneys On Retainer IN> The Problems with Khalid Re: IN> On Advancement IN> Khalid ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:15:44 -0400 From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism At 12:06 PM 10/20/98, Walter Milliken wrote: >Basically, there seems to be a spectrum of player and GM types. One >extreme is the "problem solvers", who are generally interested in gaming >as an intellectual exercise, and not particularly interested in scenery, >or tight plotting. (I tend to fall to this end of the spectrum.) > >The other end is the "storyteller", where gaming is more like a piece of >interactive fiction, with the GM directing a tightly-scripted plot and >the players improvising around it, but following it fairly carefully. >This seems to be where you land. > >More or less in the middle, are what is usually known as the "real >roleplayers", who are mostly concerned with character interaction >in-character, and may not necessarily care if there *is* a plot, as long >as the NPCs, other PCs, and scenery are interesting. As long as we're discussing the "game-story-character" axes, as they're known in some on-line circles, I'd like to add the fourth - the "social" axis. These players game mainly as "an activity to do with friends" and are most interested in games that allow them lots of interaction with other players, not necessarily with their characters. - - J ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 11:52 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts >> I think this is a non-issue in IN, where a starting celestial can have >> anything from 5-500 years service (or more, or less) under their belt and >> still begin on the same stats. > >Personally, I don't like this feature of the rules. I don't see what's >wrong with spending half a page or page of guidelines as to how to >point-cost characters based on age and variety of experience. I think the problem is that it would turn into a mass of special cases very quickly, depending heavily on the career specifics of the celestial. I believe the APG and/or IPG suggest the GM consider allowing extra points for older celestials (among other alternatives), with a reasonable background explanation for the specific Resources the character now has. >The AM experience system rules. Admittedly, I've only seen the 4th Ed one, >and I gather there were substantial changes to the downtime experience >gathering methods, but the core idea is something I'd always wanted to >see anyway. People should advance more from off-stage activities, as a >matter of basic credibility. Traveller 1st ed. did this -- the *only* way to improve the character was to study; it had no experience points at all. While it's not really realistic, I prefer some form of experience points, mixed with some form of "downtime study", like in GURPS. Such systems are rarely dominated by the "downtime" factor, for good reason - -- experience points are really rewards for the *player*. Hmmm... maybe a system where experience points are added to your *next* character's base would work.... Have to try that someday. >> I'd also cost the skills the AM way though (1cp for the first dot, 2cp for >> the 2nd dot, 3 cp for the third dot etc.) >> >There should definitely be some pyramidal element. Level 6 skills should >be very rare, the kind of things you see in characters 1000s of years old. I suspect this aspect of IN design may have been due to a desire to limit the overall number of skills a character was likely to have (i.e., relatively few skill points to prevent JOAT syndrome), while still allowing for a character with one or two really outstanding skills. It also really simplifies character design. I'm sure they didn't want IN characters to be as complex to design as GURPS ones -- they were looking to pull in new customers who liked light mechanics and heavy roleplaying, I think. I prefer some sort of progressive skill and attribute cost system, myself. (Of course, I'm a GURPS fan when I'm not playing IN.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 11:56 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts >I think you could easily run an AM-style IN game. Assign the PCs to a small >city (ie. covenant), where they are probably the main angelic/ demonic >contingent and possibly have been for a while, and divide the year up into >thirds or quarters -- work out what your backplots and subplots are, and >assume that life has been generally quiet for them, to the extent of >probably no more than one or two calls for heavy celestial action per >season. That seems reasonable to me, for a fairly realistic type of game. My own IN campaign is running roughly like this -- usually a month or more lapses between major incidents. This gives people time to recover Essence, and keeps the campaign from feeling like a constant state of siege. (I first took this approach in one of my GURPS Space games, where it made sense, due to boring travel time on starships.) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 11:59 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: RE: IN> Adventure Concepts >Maybe I just hand out too much during up-time, but I think characters = >advance quickly enough as it is. They do seem to, in In Nomine. I've been being *very* stingy with points, having been concerned about this problem since I read the rules. >I don't agree with the idea of players having multiple characters (they = >won't 'bond' with them This hasn't been that much of a problem in games I've been in where some people did have multiple characters (though not necessarily routinely, or mixed together in random sets). > or they'll end up all sounding the same, but with = >different stats), That's mostly a roleplaying flaw in the player, I think. Though one I'm somewhat prone to, myself.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 12:15 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism >>Once SJGames started the Revelations Cycle, they were pretty much >>committed to finishing it. Whether they choose to continue the cycle >>model, or find a different one for packaging the various components of >>the game (background, rules, adventures, etc.) is a marketing decision. > >'...find a different one...' ? Hmmm... More, I couldn't say. Not that I actually know much of what's going on in SJ's head, anyway.... >>It *is* useful to know what is keeping new players out of the game, >>though -- > >Is this the truth then? Has market research indicated that new players >are not biting? I'm not sure how much "market research" has been done. I deduce that sales have been steady, more or less, but not spectacular. I can tell this from long experience with SJGames, based on how quickly a book sells out of its original print run. It's also obvious from looking in the local game store -- IN books aren't selling out and being reordered, and they tell me it's a relatively slow seller, compared to GURPS, for example, or WW stuff. >Hence this proposed GURPS conversion I suspect. >(Incidentally, where _is_ word of this on the SJG website?) http://www.sjgames.com/general/author/wish.html You get there through the "General Info" button on the main page, and then go to the stuff for authors (the "Author Solicitation" page), and thence to the project "wish list". >Would such a conversion mean the discontinuation of IN itself? No, I don't think that's at all the intent. I think it's to open up IN supplement sales to a crossover market of IN GURPS players, actually. I get the impression than not many GURPS regulars also play IN. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:20:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts In the home-made mechanics we use, advancement is by practice of specific skills. In play, you roll below your current level to succeed, like in GURPs, though we use percentil dice. After a session, you make a "learning roll" on each skill you used successfully. For the learning roll, you want to roll ABOVE your current level. If you do, you then go up in the skill by your "learn rate" -- typically 3 to 6 percentage points, calculated from the attributes that apply to the skill. The result of this is there is no subjectivity about advancement, as in experience point systems, and you mimic the real-world learning curve, nearly flat for beginners and for experts, but rising steeply for those in the middle. We allow training at one learn roll per week of instruction (typically taken in slack times between active adventuring). But advancement by training is no longer possible once your skill level is more than ten times your learn rate. Such a system could be adapted to GURPS. You could, for instance, scuttle the learn-rate stat and just go up by one point when you make your learn roll. If that's too fast, given the coarser granularity of GURPS skills, the player might have, say, a 50% chance to go up on a successful learn roll. What is the "AM" system of advancement, and what is "AM"? If it was mentioned earlier in the thread, I missed it. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:31:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Kenneth Winland wrote: > I think that they should avoid the religion issue entirely, but I > do agree with a lot of your points. It would be FANTASTIC if IN mined > some of the early Christian and Jewish apocrypha for material. The Book > of Enoch, The Books of Adam and Eve, The War Scroll; all of these have > really neat materials that can either shape an IN backrgound or supply > scneario ideas. I think publishing some -possible- answers for some of the Areas of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty would be a nice idea. Not laying down the law, saying "This is the way it is" but offering some different possibilities... this would make it easier for GM:s to decide for themselves how they want things in their campaign. But I guess that would still be too controversial for the American market... too bad. :( > I do have to say that some of the material that has surfaced on > this list is rather interesting. I am especially impressed with some of > the Archangels and Demon Princes. Some of the Songs are nice as well. > 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: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:58:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Howdy! On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Actually, I'll take issue with this -- it's been my experience that it's > hard to convert *either way* between a "realistic" system and a > "cinematic" one. Incrementally adding realism to a game system that's > not designed for it isn't really feasible using half-way measures -- > realism in one place will simply raise questions of unreasonable effects > in others. I guess it depends on the system. You can easily add more realism to any simplistic system, but there is a "cap", or a point where the added changes will warp the mechanics. I think that you can incrementally add "realism" -- to a certain degree. But you right; if you want a more"realistic" system with a more gritty approach reflected in all the mechanics, then start anew. In my younger years, we sought "realism" through Aftermath, GURPS, and other such systems. These days, we play AMBER, In Nomine, FUDGE, abd Falkenstein, while adding "realism" through role-play and gamemastering. Over the years, we've found it better coming from that angle. Six of one, half dozen of the other... :) Later! Ken PS Thanks for the release info. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:03:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Jews in In Nomine Howdy! On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > Nowhere in In Nomine canon has it been indicated that Uriel or Laurence > > ever held any animosity for the Jews. They favor Christianity, but that > > doesn't necessarily mean they are anti-Jewish. They might believe the Jews > > "missed the boat," so to speak, but that doesn't mean they're enemies of > > Judaism. In fact it's highly unlikely they would be so. > > Furthermore, it doesn't say they believe in Christianity, just that they > promote it. You could have Laurence (or especially Uriel) promoting the concepts of *early* Christianity, where the line between "Jew" and "Christian" was VERY blurred... :) Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:30:32 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Earl Wajenberg wrote: > In the home-made mechanics we use, advancement is by practice > of specific skills. In play, you roll below your current > level to succeed, like in GURPs, though we use percentil dice. > After a session, you make a "learning roll" on each skill > you used successfully. For the learning roll, you want to > roll ABOVE your current level. If you do, you then go up > in the skill by your "learn rate" -- typically 3 to 6 percentage > points, calculated from the attributes that apply to the skill. This is pretty much the experience system for Call of Cthulhu (and all the members of the now defunct, barring CoC and whatever their calling the Stormbringer game these days Basic Roleplaying System Chaosium created) except that the actual increase in the percentage skill there is randomly determined. > What is the "AM" system of advancement, and what is "AM"? If it > was mentioned earlier in the thread, I missed it. Ars Magica. It's a game that was owned, in order, by Lion Rampant, White Wolf, Wizards of the Coast and now Atlas and has had roughly one edition per company. The game is set in "Mythic Europe", which is a roughly historical Europe with an organization of wizards thrown in. Plus some other, mysterious organizations and a bunch of unorganzied hedge wizards. The material for it is generally well done, though not as historically accurate as they like to think. (Can anyone tell me if there is a real Loch Leglean and where it is? We just had tribunal without any clue where.) Parts of the character advancement system are very nice; others are hopeless. It's pyramidal in that it takes 1 xp to get an ability at level 1, 2 xp for level 2, 3 xp for level 3, etc. All skills are theoretically open-ended, but the practical maximum for a lot of them is about 6. The fifteen magical arts advance at about five times the rate of abilities, though very few characters will ever reach 30 in any of them. What is innovative about it, at least in my experience, is that Formal Knowledges and Magical Arts are primarily advanced by studying rather than adventuring. There are extensive rules for how one learns by reading different kinds of books. One can also learn magic by conducting experiments in the lab, which can also be used to create magic items. The drawbacks of the advancement system are basically twofold. The practice and learning rules for physical skills are really warped; it's often more beneficial for someone with a low skill level to practice on their own rather than with a teacher. It also has no system for learning knowledges at a level higher than anyone already has, leading one to ask how anyone ever developed a score above zero. The game justifies this by invoking the medieval mindset that all knowledges have been perfected in some work (Aristotle for much of Philosophae, for instance), but if you don't buy into this completely (as I prefer not to; I'd like to see my character with Mythic Intelligence actually advance knowledge), you have to cobble something together. There are rules in the WG for doing new things with magic, but this doesn't apply to Knowledges. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:25:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Winland Subject: Re: IN> Re: Constructive Criticism (Where's the Religion!) Howdy! On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > I think publishing some -possible- answers for some of the Areas of Canon > Doubt and Uncertainty would be a nice idea. Not laying down the law, > saying "This is the way it is" but offering some different > possibilities... this would make it easier for GM:s to decide for > themselves how they want things in their campaign. That would be keen! > But I guess that would still be too controversial for the American > market... too bad. :( True... After gaming for 20 years, I am *amazed* that IN has not generated much controversy. I remember the days of "Mazes and Monsters" and the "700 Club" special report on AD&D. We've come a long way, but there's still a'ways to go! :) Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: IN> Cherubic attunement Q's I'm thinking of playing a Cherub in an upcoming game, and I've a few questions: Alright, a Cherub can sense the location of an attuned object as long as it's on the Corporeal plane. Can he tell when it leaves? Can he tell where it went? (Ethereal, Celestial plane.) When it returns, is he still attuned? If so, does the Cherub know of the object's return? These sorts of things come up when you're thinking of attuning yourself to demons on a regular basis. I just have to figure out ways of A) Convincing the local Malakite not to rip open my charge (not too difficult), and B) assuring the Divine Inquisition that I've a good reason to defend the fallen (much harder). Thanks! Oh, and for those looking for my website, it moved. I'll be re-establishing both my In Nomine character sheets, and my In Nomine: The Widescreen Edition page. I'll post the URL later... In the mean time, is there anything people would absolutely like to have on a two-sided character sheet, feel free to let me know. - Jayson _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:38:54 -0700 From: "Kevin Salicos" Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #987 > IN> Top Attorneys On Retainer "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers" - -Shakespear ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:42:17 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Adventure Concepts Thanks for the information about Ars Magica mechanics. The idea that everything was better back in the glorious past, and that knowledge can only be recovered, not discovered, IS very Medieval, combining as it does their relatively fresh historical memories of the Roman Empire with the perennial human feeling that the world was all golden back when I was a lad/lass/imp/reliever, etc. ("Back when we were kids, we didn't have Strom Thurmond. Oh, wait, yes we did.") It would be cute to add some magic-study a la Terry Pratchett's library at Unseen University, where the magic in the books means they try to read *you*, are put up a fight against being read. No skill increase without first winning a round of intellectual combat. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:38:43 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> On Religion Someone recently commented something to the effect of "Wouldn't it be nice if In Nomine started being more specific about all of those questions of religion that it has heretofore skirted around." I felt the need to jump in here and make a few comments of my own. Namely, that increased specificity would make the IN universe more static, not more dynamic. It would set in stone certain elements of the background rather than leave it up to the GM to decide some of these questions. I am a firm believer in the notion of Canon Doubt and UncertaintyTM. Some questions are better left unanswered, or left to individual GMs to determine. As to including more accurate material on the nature of various religions, especially ones that have been somewhat misrepresented (Islam) or not dealt with at length (most Eastern religions), I think this would be a wonderful idea, but I would be unsure as to how it might be implemented. The Kabbalah book for Ars Magica has been tossed around as an example, and I think it is a good one; if there were to be a book or large section on Judaism, it should tie into some key facet of the In Nomine universe, rather than being a catch-all. Remember, the Kabbalah book is there to provide information related to the magi of the game, not as a general history and background of the Jews, regardless of its tidbits of everyday Jewish life in medieval culture. It has a *focus*, and I think this would be essential in rendering something similar for In Nomine. I would personally rather read something about Eli's presence as Krishna in Hindu scripture rather than a blanket background for Hinduism in In Nomine. As far as getting concrete in individual games, I refer you to Ken Hite's excellent article on bisociation in his Pyramid column "Suppressed Transmissions." (Don't have a subscription? Get one. Take a look at http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid. Plug plug.) My own inclination is very simple: if you weren't there, you don't know with any degree of certainty. After all, there is propaganda in Heaven as well as Hell. Which religion is right? All of them, and none of them. From the celestial standpoint, you know the Truth, or at least some of it, and if anybody's got it wrong, it's the *humans*. Aren't they wonderful? :) Just some thoughts, Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:06:55 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> On Balance It has been much discussed recently whether or not In Nomine is realistic or cinematic, and how this affects particularly the adventure writing for the supplements. Some people have argued realism over playability, or vice versa. Some have argued that a game should allow for any potential situation to be accurately "modeled" by the rules. In Nomine is cinematic; everyone who has had a hand in it admits to that. If this isn't your style, it doesn't have to be; I find myself struggling hard against the notion of In Nomine as cosmic comedy, considering the inclusion of the Demon Prince of Dark Humor and many of the amusing things dropped into the background. Even the vignettes support this attitude. Games aren't laws of physics; they *can't* model everything. There is merely a tendency towards ease-of-play or the representation of reality. "Representation" is the key here; what we're talking about is not realism, but verisimilitude--the simulation of life, not life itself. How this affects play varies from GM to GM. Running a session last weekend, I found the story taking a very "Law & Order" direction, which was OK as I am a big fan of the show. So I dropped in details about police procedure, and everybody had hidden agendas (some of which astounded the PCs when they discovered them). Yet I was still able to roll with the punches; a player said he was taking someone to "Clancy's, a bar a few blocks over," then asked me if there was such a bar. I told him there was now, because he invented it, and that any similar additions to the story were OK as long as they didn't cause major problems. I didn't have to come up with Clancy's, because my player had, but I would have balked if he had then decided that he was also good friends with Police Commissioner Jennings. It's a matter of degrees. This same player wanted to have in his background the fact that his (female) character, a Malakite of Protection, was a former lover of Gabriel's who was tossed aside like a broken toy after a while. At first, I didn't want to let it through, as it was too big a connection, but then decided it was OK, as it added flavor to the story without really have a direct impact on--Gabriel was not going to appear in the story, merely be a backstage presence, and he certainly wasn't likely to summon her for help, considering their prior relationship's disastrous end (being an Outcast Malakite of Fire for a while is not a good thing). My point is this: how cinematic or realistic a game is is the bailiwick of the GM. I would say that most of the character interactions were realistic, but that combat was somewhat cinematic, as I was not interested in bogging down the pacing (another consideration) to incorporate detailed hit locations, damage effects, etc. That I can wing, but still has an impact; when they went for head shots, it could put someone down in one shot, if the roll was strong enough. Some fantasy is inevitable. If a player argues that the demon's vessel would have bled to death, you are perfectly within your rights to say that celestial vessels don't work entirely like human ones, but that a human would have bled to death under the same circumstances. Here's a matter of trust; consistency is the only key. Just some thoughts, Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:54:57 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> [ADMIN] Re: Top Attorneys On Retainer As you may have guessed, this was spammed. I've contacted all the folks who are in the received headers for this crap and with luck, astorg.net (which gets service from freeyellow.com) will be dead soon. Their hotmail address, if legit, is certainly going to die. At 11:15 PM -0500 10/20/98, owner-in_nomine-l@lists.io.com wrote: >Top Attorneys On Retainer > >Question: Did you know you can have top notch, expensive attorneys on retainer for only pennies a day? > >But, you ask, "Why should I have top attorney firms on retainer?" > >Answer: Because attorneys SAVE you money. Yes, if you use them, it's true in the long run, because you make better decisions. Wealthy people know this !! > >Answer: Because attorneys help keep you out of trouble. Doing what you think is right might still not be in legal compliance. If you're in a service industry you know exactly what I mean. > >Answer: Because attorneys help put pressure on the other guys.' Just having them know you have an attorney makes them think twice !! > >Answer: Because attorneys get you the attention you deserve. Just like the wealthy, you'll be top of someones list if they know you have an attorney on hand. > >Answer: Because you can say, I'll be talking to my attorney about this'...and mean it. No more bluffing !! > >Answer: Because they can say, Expect to hear from my attorney about this'...and mean it. NO MORE BLUFFING !! > > >Find out how, and our "SPECIAL LIMITED TIME FREE OFFER" at http://www.astorg.net/service1.html > > To Unsubscribe: >Send email with the word Unsubscribe' in the subject to astorg@hotmail.com - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:19:59 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Constructive Criticism At 2:33 AM +0100 10/21/98, Julian Breen wrote: >Would [the GURPS IN] conversion mean the discontinuation of IN itself? Definitely not! - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:27:24 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Cherubic attunement Q's At 10:30 AM -0700 10/21/98, Jayson Howell wrote: >I'm thinking of playing a Cherub in an upcoming game, and I've a few >questions: > >Alright, a Cherub can sense the location of an attuned object as long >as it's on the Corporeal plane. (IIRC, the errata either says, or should say (if the email I sent wasn't eaten) that the Cherub senses the location so long as the Attuned One and the Cherub are on the *same* plane.) >Can he tell when it leaves? If he tweaks his resonance and doesn't find it, then he can probably figure that it's gone elsewhere. With a good roll (CD 5+?), *I* would personally let the Cherub know which plane it went to -- Corporeal, Ethereal or Celestial. >Can he tell where it went? (Ethereal, Celestial plane.) I'd let this happen with a good CD. >When it returns, is he still attuned? Yes. >If so, does the Cherub know of the object's return? Not until he checks his attunement, making a Perception roll. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:13:08 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> On Advancement The ongoing discussion about character advancement has centered around two points: the fact that celestials develop differently than humans (allowing for 5000 year 9-Force, 36-cp characters) and the idea of "on-stage" character development (improvement based on actions taken during adventures) vs. "off-stage" development (studying, learning, practicing, etc.). To tackle the second issue first, part of the problem may be simply linguistic. Almost all RPGs have an experience system, with most point-based systems using experience points (GURPS, WW games, AM, etc.). The problem is that there is a *difference* between experience and learning. For our purposes, I categorize experience as acquired by doing, and learning as acquired by study and reading. To take a real-world approach to gaming, how many of us say, "I'm going to improve my ability to do X, or learn how to do Y, which I've never done before"? Granted, most of us don't tend to go on "adventures" regularly, either, but character development should be character-based, not player-based. If it makes sense for the character to desire acquiring the new ability or improving the old, then let them take a crack at it. Most people don't have the attitude of wanting to acquiring new and improved abilities, except by taking classes or weekend seminars; if they do, they often lack the follow-through. I know very few truly self-actualized people, but then again, my generation is known primarily for its slackers. :) For those who are dissatisfied with the 36 character points available for starting 9-Force characters, perhaps using a multiple other than 4 for generating starting points is advisable. This still allows for standard starting *characteristics*, but allows a little bit more flexibility in the choice of skills, songs, attunements, etc. (This recalls my major disappointment with Khalid's writeup--not with the background as much as the poorly-considered attunements, which give various Choirs characteristic bonuses. Not a good idea, from a balance standpoint.) Making a factor of age is another possibility, but I personally hold to the more static view of character development rather than the dynamic one; celestials' powers come and go, without a drastic increase in overall ability or competence. They are, after all, limited beings, not in the sense that humans are, but certainly in the sense of not being omniscient or omnipotent. (Then again, I come from the school of making do with what you have, rather than whining about becoming more powerful.) To return to the difference between experience and learning, it may be worthwhile to create two separate pools of points: one garnered from adventuring, the other from downtime learning. I still like the idea of Superior rewards, as it puts control firmly into the hands of the GM, while allowing good roleplaying to be rewarded by a Superior giving attention to a servitor that, regardless of success or failure, has held fast to their Word and promoted it. To quickly address the first issue specifically, age does not imply experience. This is a chronic problem with Vampire: The Dark Ages--100 years of unlife may be lead without any significant changes or improvements to the characters, but most players clamor for experience or freebies based on the passage of time. Note that almost no RPG has a system for character *degradation*, as skills slip through disuse and age affects attributes. Some have a system for the later, but never the former. This is why I hold to the undulation theory--as some skills develop and increase, others fade from disuse; the effect is a character with more or less the same point value, but with a different distribution of points over time. In In Nomine, this can explain 5000-year-old 9-Force, 36-cp characters, and also works well with the dynamic of celestials still being limited entities; unlike humans, you can only pack so much into a celestial, based on their Forces, without having to remove certain things to make room for new and improved ones. Human memory is theoretically infinite; hard drive space is not. Celestials are computers, more than humans, in this regard. Just my two-cents worth, Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:28:07 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Re: Top Attorneys On Retainer Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > As you may have guessed, this was spammed. I've contacted all the folks > who are in the received headers for this crap and with luck, astorg.net > (which gets service from freeyellow.com) will be dead soon. Their hotmail > address, if legit, is certainly going to die. As they say, Don't Mess Around with Djinn J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:35:29 -0400 From: "Matthew D. Gandy" Subject: IN> The Problems with Khalid Khalid, Archangel of Faith, has suffered some abuse at the hands of readers who were dissatisfied with the representation of the Word of Faith, as well as that of Islam and Khalid's connection to the religion. I agree with some points, disagree on others. What I adamantly oppose is his attunements. Why? Simple. They're half-assed. The rest of the In Nomine universe works on a very nice principle of balance between Forces in a particular area and their corresponding characteristics. Khalid's Choir attunements blows this out of the water. Instead of having Choir attunements that are nicely tailored to the Word of Faith, or Khalid himself, they are instead characteristic "adders", throwing the whole system off. Yes, some of them have additional powers which are useful and choir-specific, but not consistently. A point-by-point analysis of additional powers: Seraphim: No other benefit besides characteristic adder. Cherubim: Knows attuned's strongest belief. Ofanim: See true love in human's eyes, *and* heal points of damage (what kind? who knows!) per day blah blah blah Elohim: They can *choose* their characteristic adder, and can see what a person believes in with their resonance (only a minor variation on their basic resonance, and not much help with a high CD anyway). Malakim: Resonance to spot the faithless (again, a variation). Kyriotates: Can briefly inspire hosts with true faith in *anything* for a few minutes (the Angel of Suicide Truck-Bombers is obviously a Kyriotate of Faith). Mercurians: This is a rite, disguised as a choir attunement. The greatest disappointment of all is Khalid's one-and-only Servitor attunement: Wrath of God. Faith related? Nope, just a damage multiplier. And those distinctions of his? Two of the three *only* affect Wrath of God. What's the use of holding a Master distinction of Khalid's? A higher damage multiplier for Wrath of God! Is this the Archangel of Faith, or the Archangel of Smiting Things and PowerGamingTM? Gabriel's additional attunements in The Marches had more to do with Faith than Khalid's do. This is really inexcusable; we anticipated Khalid's writeup for the better part of a year, and it falls down on all counts. I have to say that Khalid is the *only* Superior who I would *totally* rewrite if I wanted to use him in my campaign; at least I can say that I would only tweak existing Superiors if I had problems, but Khalid is a blemish in the In Nomine universe. A quick rewrite of Khalid after he got "better" following the events in Final Trumpet and started acting like a *real* Archangel of Faith (rather than the Archangel of Ragheaded Truckbombers suggested by David Edelstein) would be wonderful. Any takers? Just some thoughts, Matthew D. "Demiurge" Gandy "still looking for the face I had before the world was made" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:35:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> On Advancement Matthew D. Gandy wrote: > I still like the idea of Superior rewards, as it puts control > firmly into the hands of the GM, while allowing good roleplaying > to be rewarded by a Superior giving attention to a servitor that, > regardless of success or failure, has held fast to their Word and > promoted it. I think Superior reward is particularly appropriate to IN, where the default presumption is that the PC was *created* by its Superior, or at least by some Superior at some time. Is advancement strictly necessary? Or at least advancement by rising stats? Are there any successful RPGs where stats are fixed? > This is why I hold to the undulation theory--as some skills > develop and increase, others fade from disuse; the effect is a > character with more or less the same point value, but with a > different distribution of points over time. For our home-made rutles, I have proposed a system for characters "on sabbatical," wherein you can move points around from one skill to another, except that you cannot add points to combat skills (as that implies more adventure than is compatible with a sabbatical). I have used it only once, on my own PC, but it worked fine for me. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:45:56 -0500 From: Eeyore Subject: IN> Khalid Matthew D. Gandy wrote: > (This recalls my major disappointment with Khalid's writeup--not with the > > background as much as the poorly-considered attunements, which give > various Choirs characteristic bonuses. Not a good idea, from a balance > standpoint.) Well, since he asked... I have a rough draft of the alternative Khalid write-up I said I was going to do, as well as an alternative Dark Khalid. Next, I plan to do a few Servitors. I gave different attunements, not because of balance, but I thought they were more interesting. As the main writeup is long (4 pages in MSWord, before I start editing), I figure I'd get a nastygram for posting it straight to the list. I'm planning to put it on a website, but first I have to learn how to make one. If anyone is interested in seeing it before then, I'd be happy to mail it to you directly. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #988 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.