From: Ron Lundeen Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 02:49:18 -0700 (MST) Grenades, and other blast radius effects. Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game systems have the same basic "character to character" combat system applied with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" combat system. Ron <===========================================================> < > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > < well, I have others." > < --Groucho Marx > < > <===========================================================> - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 09:26:42 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C5B.00DDEF92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. John Moeller Firmware Engineer Salt Lake City Firmware jmoeller@enterasys.com www.enterasys.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 AM > To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options > > > > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. > > Ron > > <===========================================================> > < > > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > > < well, I have others." > > < --Groucho Marx > > < > > <===========================================================> > > > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C5B.00DDEF92 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  A = vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative = distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular = personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so should a = vehicle.  Yadda, yadda.

John Moeller
Firmware Engineer
Salt Lake City Firmware

jmoeller@enterasys.com
www.enterasys.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.e= du]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 = AM
> To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com
> Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat = Options
>
>
>
>     Grenades, and other = blast radius effects.
>     Furthermore, keep in = mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the best game
> systems have the same basic "character to = character" combat
> system applied
> with only a few tweaks to become the = "vehicle to vehicle"
> combat system.
>
> Ron
>
> = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
> = <           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           = >
> <   "Those are my principles, = and if you don't like them... >
> <   well, I have = others."          = ;            = ;            = ; >
> = <           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;    --Groucho = Marx           &n= bsp;     >
> = <           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           &n= bsp;           = >
> = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
>
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email = to "majordomo@xmission.com"
>  with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in = the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving = files and old messages
>  send "help" to the same = address.  Do not use quotes in your
>  message.
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C5B.00DDEF92-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 11:30:50 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C08C42.6DEAABC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat OptionsI agree, I would have the same basic mechanics but with some mandatory changes. I also want the vehicle combat system to be rugged enough to handle more than just car chases, I want it to be able to handle flying vehicles as well. Thou right now I don't even have a damage system so vehicles are far from my mind. Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 AM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. John Moeller Firmware Engineer Salt Lake City Firmware jmoeller@enterasys.com www.enterasys.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 AM > To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options > > > > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. > > Ron > > <===========================================================> > < > > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > > < well, I have others." > > < --Groucho Marx > > < > > <===========================================================> > > > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C08C42.6DEAABC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
I agree, I would have the same basic mechanics but with = some=20 mandatory changes.  I also want the vehicle combat system to be = rugged=20 enough to handle more than just car chases, I want it to be able to = handle=20 flying vehicles as well.  Thou right now I don't even have a damage = system=20 so vehicles are far from my mind.
 
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) 652-2693 = cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, = John
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 AM
To: = 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After = Life=20 Combat Options

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  A = vehicular=20 combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative = distance. =20 That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat=20 stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle.  = Yadda,=20 yadda.

John Moeller
Firmware = Engineer=20
Salt Lake City Firmware

jmoeller@enterasys.com
www.enterasys.com


> -----Original Message-----
>=20 From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.ed= u]=20
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 = AM=20
> To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com =
> Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options =
>
>
>=20
>     Grenades, and = other blast=20 radius effects.
>     = Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the best = game=20
> systems have the same basic "character to = character"=20 combat
> system applied
> with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to = vehicle"=20
> combat system.
>=20
> Ron
> =
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
> <   "Those are my = principles,=20 and if you don't like them... >
>=20 <   well, I have=20 = others."           = ;            =            =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;   =20 --Groucho=20 = Marx           &nb= sp;    =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>
> =
>
> -
> =20 To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to = "majordomo@xmission.com"=20
>  with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body = of the=20 message.
>  For information on = digests or=20 retrieving files and old messages
>  = send=20 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your =
>  message.
>=20

------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C08C42.6DEAABC0-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 13:10:46 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C08C50.639BC880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat OptionsHere are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 AM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. John Moeller Firmware Engineer Salt Lake City Firmware jmoeller@enterasys.com www.enterasys.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 AM > To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options > > > > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. > > Ron > > <===========================================================> > < > > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > > < well, I have others." > > < --Groucho Marx > > < > > <===========================================================> > > > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C08C50.639BC880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
Here are my thought on hit location.  You are = taught to hit=20 someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at = them.  So,=20 whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest"=20 location.  You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other = locations=20 on the targets body.  The chest is the default and can take six=20 wounds.  You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra = steps=20 (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the = wound=20 penalties are doubled.  You can move the shot to the arm or legs = for X=20 number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a = knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown = are=20 other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that=20 additional secondary effect).  You can also move the shot to the = head for=20 high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds = will kill=20 and the secondary stun effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it = has cover=20 you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible = location.  This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you = don't=20 want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot = to=20 another location).
 
What do you all think?
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) 652-2693 = cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, = John
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 AM
To: = 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After = Life=20 Combat Options

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  A = vehicular=20 combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative = distance. =20 That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat=20 stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle.  = Yadda,=20 yadda.

John Moeller
Firmware = Engineer=20
Salt Lake City Firmware

jmoeller@enterasys.com
www.enterasys.com


> -----Original Message-----
>=20 From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.ed= u]=20
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 = AM=20
> To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com =
> Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options =
>
>
>=20
>     Grenades, and = other blast=20 radius effects.
>     = Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the best = game=20
> systems have the same basic "character to = character"=20 combat
> system applied
> with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to = vehicle"=20
> combat system.
>=20
> Ron
> =
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
> <   "Those are my = principles,=20 and if you don't like them... >
>=20 <   well, I have=20 = others."           = ;            =            =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;   =20 --Groucho=20 = Marx           &nb= sp;    =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>
> =
>
> -
> =20 To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to = "majordomo@xmission.com"=20
>  with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body = of the=20 message.
>  For information on = digests or=20 retrieving files and old messages
>  = send=20 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your =
>  message.
>=20

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C08C50.639BC880-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 13:16:40 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C08C51.36DF0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat OptionsNow that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute. The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance. Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Robert Lundeen Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:11 PM To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Here are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 AM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. John Moeller Firmware Engineer Salt Lake City Firmware jmoeller@enterasys.com www.enterasys.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 AM > To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options > > > > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. > > Ron > > <===========================================================> > < > > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > > < well, I have others." > > < --Groucho Marx > > < > > <===========================================================> > > > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C08C51.36DF0900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
Now that I think about it some more, the number of = wounds you can=20 take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute.  = The=20 primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can  take = twice your=20 endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take = a=20 number of wounds equal to you endurance.
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) 652-2693 = cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Robert=20 Lundeen
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:11 = PM
To:=20 rpggroup@lists.xmission.com
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After = Life=20 Combat Options

Here are my thought on hit location.  You are = taught to=20 hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at = them. =20 So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the = "chest"=20 location.  You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other = locations=20 on the targets body.  The chest is the default and can take six=20 wounds.  You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of = extra steps=20 (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the = wound=20 penalties are doubled.  You can move the shot to the arm or legs = for X=20 number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either = a=20 knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to = knockdown are=20 other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that = additional secondary effect).  You can also move the shot to the = head for=20 high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds = will=20 kill and the secondary stun effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it = has cover=20 you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a = visible=20 location.  This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if = you don't=20 want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the = shot to=20 another location).
 
What do you all think?
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) = 652-2693 cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of = Moeller,=20 John
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:27 = AM
To:=20 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) = After Life=20 Combat Options

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  = A=20 vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out = relative=20 distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular = personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so = should a=20 vehicle.  Yadda, yadda.

John Moeller
Firmware=20 Engineer
Salt Lake City Firmware =

jmoeller@enterasys.com
www.enterasys.com


> -----Original Message-----
>=20 From: Ron Lundeen [mailto:Ron.Lundeen@m.cc.utah.ed= u]=20
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:49 = AM=20
> To: rpggroup@lists.xmission.com =
> Subject: Re: (rpggroup) After Life Combat = Options=20
>
> =
>
>     = Grenades,=20 and other blast radius effects.
>     Furthermore, keep in mind how = Vehicle=20 Combat works;  the best game
> = systems have=20 the same basic "character to character" combat
>=20 system applied
> with only a few tweaks = to become=20 the "vehicle to vehicle"
> combat = system.=20
>
> Ron =
>
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
> <   "Those are my = principles,=20 and if you don't like them... >
>=20 <   well, I have=20 = others."           = ;            =            =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;   =20 --Groucho=20 = Marx           &nb= sp;    =20 >
>=20 = <           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 >
>=20 = <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>=20
>
> =
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to=20 "majordomo@xmission.com"
>  with=20 "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files = and old=20 messages
>  send "help" to the = same=20 address.  Do not use quotes in your
> =20 message.
>=20

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C08C51.36DF0900-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 15:21:36 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8C.9554C1A6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary. You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body. I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg. Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature. Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute. The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance. Here are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8C.9554C1A6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary.  You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body.  I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg.  Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature.
Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute.  The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can  take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance.
Here are my thought on hit location.  You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them.  So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location.  You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body.  The chest is the default and can take six wounds.  You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled.  You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect).  You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location.  This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location).
 
What do you all think?

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle.  Yadda, yadda.

>     Grenades, and other blast radius effects.
>     Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the best game
> systems have the same basic "character to character" combat
> system applied
> with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle"
> combat system.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8C.9554C1A6-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Re: After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 15:31:06 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8D.E88BF49C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Now that you brought it up, Deb, you gave me an idea. Supernatural effects such as fire, electricity, ice, vibration, etc. should be equivalent to their natural or artificial counterparts as far as what they do to someone. There could be special cases, of course, but a "fireball"-type spell or Etheric Power should cause X points/dice/whatever of "fire damage" just like a bonfire. Non-lethal damage, if that isn't already covered in your categories. Nifty unarmed combat. Specializations (and special skills/tricks for specialized people if your game works that way). Modifiers if you're wounded or stunned. Non-modern weapons. Magical effects when used in combat--burn damage, ice damage, lightning damage, etc. What might worsen these, such as metal armor. Psychological states that affect combat--broken, frightened, etc. I need combat options, all of the combat options you guys can think of to include in the system. Things like knockdown, or massive damage, falling damage and the like. I'm not looking for any rules for them right now (but you can send them) mainly just ideas to include. So we don't have a lot of repeats the ideas that I have so far are: * aiming * called shots * cover * concealment * fire modes for guns (single, burst, auto) * move through * knockdown * massive damage ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8D.E88BF49C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Now that you brought it up, Deb, you gave me an idea.  Supernatural effects such as fire, electricity, ice, vibration, etc. should be equivalent to their natural or artificial counterparts as far as what they do to someone.  There could be special cases, of course, but a "fireball"-type spell or Etheric Power should cause X points/dice/whatever of "fire damage" just like a bonfire.
Non-lethal damage, if that isn't already covered in your categories.  Nifty unarmed combat.  Specializations (and special skills/tricks for specialized people if your game works that way).  Modifiers if you're wounded or stunned.  Non-modern weapons.  Magical effects when used in combat--burn damage, ice damage, lightning damage, etc.  What might worsen these, such as metal armor.  Psychological states that affect combat--broken, frightened, etc.
I need combat options, all of the combat options you guys can think of to include in the system.  Things like knockdown, or massive damage, falling damage and the like.  I'm not looking for any rules for them right now (but you can send them) mainly just ideas to include.
 
So we don't have a lot of repeats the ideas that I have so far are:
  • aiming
  • called shots
  • cover
  • concealment
  • fire modes for guns (single, burst, auto)
  • move through
  • knockdown
  • massive damage
------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8D.E88BF49C-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 13:39:24 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C08C54.637F4300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat OptionsI agree with you, the damage you have to do to an arm to blow it clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing it to the head. At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and your head can take allot of punishment before it goes down. Four wounds of punishment? probably not, but I'm trying to think of game balance and complexity as well. For balance sake I cannot make it so easy to kill a person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint experience character. For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that you have double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in those... I think I can please the whole crowd by making an additional modification though. The stun check you have to make after you get hit in the head could be switched to a knockout. Everytime you are hit in the head you have to make a knockout check or just fall unconscious. That way it is a little more reasonable about the punishment you can take before a person drops, and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets a little lower. Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:22 PM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary. You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body. I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg. Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature. Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute. The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance. Here are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C08C54.637F4300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
I agree with you, the damage you have to do to an arm = to blow it=20 clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing it to = the=20 head.  At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and your = head can=20 take allot of punishment before it goes down.  Four wounds of=20 punishment?  probably not, but I'm trying to think of game balance = and=20 complexity as well.  For balance sake I cannot make it so easy to = kill a=20 person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint experience=20 character.  For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that you = have=20 double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in=20 those...
 
I think I can please the whole crowd by making an additional = modification=20 though.  The stun check you have to make after you get hit in the = head=20 could be switched to a knockout.  Everytime you are hit in the head = you=20 have to make a knockout check or just fall unconscious.  That way = it is a=20 little more reasonable about the punishment you can take before a person = drops,=20 and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets a little=20 lower.
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) 652-2693 = cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, = John
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:22 PM
To: = 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After = Life=20 Combat Options

I like the fact that wound location is kind of = secondary. =20 You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit = a=20 different part of the body.  I don't think, though, that the head = should=20 be able to take as much as an arm or leg.  Also, I like the = "painful gut=20 wound" feature.
Now that I think about it some more, the number of = wounds you=20 can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance = attribute. =20 The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can  = take=20 twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, = head)=20 can take a number of wounds equal to you=20 endurance.
Here are my thought on hit location.  You = are taught=20 to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting = at=20 them.  So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit = them in=20 the "chest" location.  You can spend extra steps to move your = shot to=20 other locations on the targets body.  The chest is the = default and=20 can take six wounds.  You can move the shot to the vitals for = X=20 number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit = of the=20 vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled.  You can move = the=20 shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can = take 4=20 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check = (attacks to=20 disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, = but=20 hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary = effect). =20 You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra = steps,=20 the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the = secondary stun=20 effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and = it has=20 cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot = to a=20 visible location.  This system makes it easy to ignore hit = location=20 if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding = armor=20 (move the shot to another location).
 
What do you all think?

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with = that.  A=20 vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out = relative=20 distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the = regular=20 personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so = should a=20 vehicle.  Yadda, yadda.

>     Grenades, and = other blast=20 radius effects.
>    =20 Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the = best=20 game
> systems have the same basic = "character=20 to character" combat
> system = applied=20
> with only a few tweaks to become the = "vehicle to=20 vehicle"
> combat system.=20 =

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C08C54.637F4300-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 15:45:33 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8F.ED58CF2A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" True, or else just make it really hard to hit someone in the head (which it is, as any being naturally protects its head). Also, a skull does fairly well against falls and crushes (in the natural world), but does shit versus a bullet or bludgeoning weapon. I agree with you, the damage you have to do to an arm to blow it clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing it to the head. At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and your head can take allot of punishment before it goes down. Four wounds of punishment? probably not, but I'm trying to think of game balance and complexity as well. For balance sake I cannot make it so easy to kill a person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint experience character. For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that you have double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in those... I think I can please the whole crowd by making an additional modification though. The stun check you have to make after you get hit in the head could be switched to a knockout. Everytime you are hit in the head you have to make a knockout check or just fall unconscious. That way it is a little more reasonable about the punishment you can take before a person drops, and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets a little lower. I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary. You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body. I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg. Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature. Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute. The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance. Here are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8F.ED58CF2A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
True, or else just make it really hard to hit someone in the head (which it is, as any being naturally protects its head).  Also, a skull does fairly well against falls and crushes (in the natural world), but does shit versus a bullet or bludgeoning weapon.
I agree with you, the damage you have to do to an arm to blow it clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing it to the head.  At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and your head can take allot of punishment before it goes down.  Four wounds of punishment?  probably not, but I'm trying to think of game balance and complexity as well.  For balance sake I cannot make it so easy to kill a person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint experience character.  For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that you have double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in those...
 
I think I can please the whole crowd by making an additional modification though.  The stun check you have to make after you get hit in the head could be switched to a knockout.  Everytime you are hit in the head you have to make a knockout check or just fall unconscious.  That way it is a little more reasonable about the punishment you can take before a person drops, and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets a little lower.
I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary.  You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body.  I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg.  Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature.
Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute.  The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can  take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance.
Here are my thought on hit location.  You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them.  So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location.  You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body.  The chest is the default and can take six wounds.  You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled.  You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect).  You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location.  This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location).
 
What do you all think?

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.  A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle.  Yadda, yadda.

>     Grenades, and other blast radius effects.
>     Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works;  the best game
> systems have the same basic "character to character" combat
> system applied
> with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle"
> combat system.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08C8F.ED58CF2A-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options Date: 01 Feb 2001 14:06:11 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C08C58.216A5000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat OptionsThis is what I will think I will do. Increase the extra steps necessary to hit the head, thus making the attack harder. I am going to keep the wounds at a number equal to your endurance to reflect the high resistance to some things, and lower resistance to others (no impact/ballistic for me!). As for the secondary effect, if you take one wound to the head you have to make a stun check, if you take multiple wounds to the head (from a single attack) you have to make a knockout check. If I see that a good solid shotgun blast to the head cannot kill a man then I will lower the number of wounds to the head that you can take (maybe endurance x 0.5). -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:46 PM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options True, or else just make it really hard to hit someone in the head (which it is, as any being naturally protects its head). Also, a skull does fairly well against falls and crushes (in the natural world), but does shit versus a bullet or bludgeoning weapon. I agree with you, the damage you have to do to an arm to blow it clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing it to the head. At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and your head can take allot of punishment before it goes down. Four wounds of punishment? probably not, but I'm trying to think of game balance and complexity as well. For balance sake I cannot make it so easy to kill a person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint experience character. For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that you have double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in those... I think I can please the whole crowd by making an additional modification though. The stun check you have to make after you get hit in the head could be switched to a knockout. Everytime you are hit in the head you have to make a knockout check or just fall unconscious. That way it is a little more reasonable about the punishment you can take before a person drops, and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets a little lower. I like the fact that wound location is kind of secondary. You don't have to pay attention to it, but you can if you want to hit a different part of the body. I don't think, though, that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or leg. Also, I like the "painful gut wound" feature. Now that I think about it some more, the number of wounds you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance attribute. The primary hit locations on you body (chest and vitals) can take twice your endurance in wounds, the secondary locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal to you endurance. Here are my thought on hit location. You are taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) when shooting at them. So, whenever you shoot someone you are assumed to hit them in the "chest" location. You can spend extra steps to move your shot to other locations on the targets body. The chest is the default and can take six wounds. You can move the shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also take 6 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties are doubled. You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X number of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is either a knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in the arm or legs has that additional secondary effect). You can also move the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the benefit of the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun effect. Cover would work like Deadlands, if you hit the chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra step to move the shot to a visible location. This system makes it easy to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and solid rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another location). What do you all think? Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. A vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring out relative distance. That includes to-hit numbers, armor, all the regular personal combat stuff. If a person has hit locations, so should a vehicle. Yadda, yadda. > Grenades, and other blast radius effects. > Furthermore, keep in mind how Vehicle Combat works; the best game > systems have the same basic "character to character" combat > system applied > with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle to vehicle" > combat system. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C08C58.216A5000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) After Life Combat Options
This is what I will think I will do.  = Increase the=20 extra steps necessary to hit the head, thus making the attack = harder.  I am=20 going to keep the wounds at a number equal to your endurance to reflect = the high=20 resistance to some things, and lower resistance to others (no = impact/ballistic=20 for me!).  As for the secondary effect, if you take one wound to = the head=20 you have to make a stun check, if you take multiple wounds to the head = (from a=20 single attack) you have to make a knockout check.  If I see that a = good=20 solid shotgun blast to the head cannot kill a man then I will lower the = number=20 of wounds to the head that you can take (maybe endurance x=20 0.5).
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, = John
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:46 PM
To: = 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) After = Life=20 Combat Options

True, or else just make it really hard to hit someone = in the=20 head (which it is, as any being naturally protects its head).  = Also, a=20 skull does fairly well against falls and crushes (in the natural = world),=20 but does shit versus a bullet or bludgeoning=20 weapon.
I agree with you, the damage you have to do to an = arm to blow=20 it clean off would have long ago killed a person if you were doing = it to the=20 head.  At the same time, a persons skull is pretty strong and = your head=20 can take allot of punishment before it goes down.  Four wounds = of=20 punishment?  probably not, but I'm trying to think of game = balance and=20 complexity as well.  For balance sake I cannot make it so easy = to kill=20 a person that it would be a walk in the park for any midpoint = experience=20 character.  For complexity sake it is allot easier to say that = you have=20 double your endurance in these and equal to your endurance in=20 those...
 
I think I can please the whole crowd by making an = additional=20 modification though.  The stun check you have to make after you = get hit=20 in the head could be switched to a knockout.  Everytime you are = hit in=20 the head you have to make a knockout check or just fall = unconscious. =20 That way it is a little more reasonable about the punishment you can = take=20 before a person drops, and the kill in one hit to a head factor gets = a=20 little lower.
I like the fact that wound location is kind of=20 secondary.  You don't have to pay attention to it, but you = can if you=20 want to hit a different part of the body.  I don't think, = though,=20 that the head should be able to take as much as an arm or = leg.  Also,=20 I like the "painful gut wound" = feature.
Now that I think about it some more, the number = of wounds=20 you can take will vary depending on the characters Endurance=20 attribute.  The primary hit locations on you body (chest = and=20 vitals) can  take twice your endurance in wounds, the = secondary=20 locations (arms, legs, head) can take a number of wounds equal = to you=20 endurance.
Here are my thought on hit location.  = You are=20 taught to hit someone in the center mass (chest and torso) = when=20 shooting at them.  So, whenever you shoot someone you are = assumed=20 to hit them in the "chest" location.  You can spend extra = steps=20 to move your shot to other locations on the targets = body.  The=20 chest is the default and can take six wounds.  You can = move the=20 shot to the vitals for X number of extra steps (which can also = take 6=20 wounds), the benefit of the vitals is that the wound penalties = are=20 doubled.  You can move the shot to the arm or legs for X = number=20 of extra steps (which can take 4 wounds), the benefit is = either a=20 knockdown or a disarm check (attacks to disarm and attacks to=20 knockdown are other attacks you can perform, but hitting in = the arm or=20 legs has that additional secondary effect).  You can also = move=20 the shot to the head for high X number of extra steps, the = benefit of=20 the head is that 4 wounds will kill and the secondary stun=20 effect.
 
Cover would work like Deadlands, if = you hit the=20 chest and it has cover you spang off, or you spend the extra = step to=20 move the shot to a visible location.  This system makes = it easy=20 to ignore hit location if you don't want to deal with it, and = solid=20 rules for avoiding armor (move the shot to another=20 location).
 
What do you all=20 think?

Yes.  I wholeheartedly agree with = that.  A=20 vehicular combat should only be as complicated as figuring = out=20 relative distance.  That includes to-hit numbers, = armor, all=20 the regular personal combat stuff.  If a person has hit = locations, so should a vehicle.  Yadda, = yadda.

>     Grenades, and = other=20 blast radius effects.
>     Furthermore, keep in = mind how=20 Vehicle Combat works;  the best game
> systems have the same basic "character to = character"=20 combat
> system applied =
> with only a few tweaks to become the "vehicle = to=20 vehicle"
> combat = system.=20 =

------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C08C58.216A5000-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Lundeen Subject: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 06 Feb 2001 04:34:39 -0700 (MST) For those of you that haven't yet heard, the Everyman D&D campaign came to an abrupt end on Sunday with the sudden death of the whole party in an inescapable location. There's been talk, of course, about starting another campaign, but the looming question is: what level characters should we all make? I thought I'd give my opinion on this issue, since it has, in fact, changed. I say we all start out at eighth level, which is where most of us left off. I had once declared that a first-level "restart" would be a lot more fun, but I've changed my mind for two reasons. First, I like the idea of starting a character "from scratch" and not artificially advancing him to a high level right off the bat. Low level characters and adventures are more comfortable for me. And that's why I support an eighth-level starting point: it is not comfortable, all the higher level options are not all that clear yet, and the "party dynamics" of a group of high power is entirely different. I'm for shaking up what I find comfortable, and learning something else about the game. And although all of you will play seventeenth level characters someday, even starting at first level, I won't, since I'll be moving. And eighth level still gives you twelve more levels of development, at least. Secondly, I've been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and Return to the Tomb of Horrors (gamers have scary-titled bedside reading boks), and I really want to run them; without a high-level start for the new D&D campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, if ever. Since each adventure is made up of large sections (these are, after all, epic adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob will do more playing, which I'm sure suits the both of us just fine. But just to be on the safe side this time, I'm playing a priest of Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew Potion feat for the manufacture of healing potions. I say this whole issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or something, and so I'm starting it. And now I'm going to bed. Ron <===========================================================> < > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > < well, I have others." > < --Groucho Marx > < > <===========================================================> - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 06 Feb 2001 09:36:46 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0904A.3D933A94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Wow. Things really go downhill when I leave. That's cool, though. I almost feel like it _should_ have happened. Ummm, as far as what level we start out at, I'm fine with at least 5th level, but 8th would be great. It gives us some grounding with our characters. Actually, I don't know if I'll make another character. To be honest, I was pretty glad to leave Sunday. I felt like I was coming home from work. I'm not trying to blame anyone, so please, no one take this the wrong way. Anyway, I'll think about it, but there's a chance I won't go. > For those of you that haven't yet heard, the Everyman > D&D campaign > came to an abrupt end on Sunday with the sudden death of the > whole party > in an inescapable location. > There's been talk, of course, about starting another > campaign, but > the looming question is: what level characters should we all make? I > thought I'd give my opinion on this issue, since it has, in > fact, changed. > I say we all start out at eighth level, which is where most of us > left off. I had once declared that a first-level "restart" > would be a lot > more fun, but I've changed my mind for two reasons. > First, I like the idea of starting a character "from > scratch" and not > artificially advancing him to a high level right off the bat. > Low level > characters and adventures are more comfortable for me. And > that's why I > support an eighth-level starting point: it is not > comfortable, all the > higher level options are not all that clear yet, and the > "party dynamics" > of a group of high power is entirely different. I'm for > shaking up what I > find comfortable, and learning something else about the game. And > although all of you will play seventeenth level characters > someday, even > starting at first level, I won't, since I'll be moving. And > eighth level > still gives you twelve more levels of development, at least. > Secondly, I've been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and > Return to the > Tomb of Horrors (gamers have scary-titled bedside reading boks), and I > really want to run them; without a high-level start for the new D&D > campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, if ever. Since each > adventure is made up of large sections (these are, after all, epic > adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob will do more > playing, which > I'm sure suits the both of us just fine. > But just to be on the safe side this time, I'm playing a > priest of > Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew Potion feat for > the manufacture > of healing potions. > I say this whole issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or > something, and so I'm starting it. And now I'm going to bed. > > Ron ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0904A.3D933A94 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D

Wow.  Things really go downhill when I = leave.  That's cool, though.  I almost feel like it _should_ = have happened.  Ummm, as far as what level we start out at, I'm = fine with at least 5th level, but 8th would be great.  It gives us = some grounding with our characters. 

Actually, I don't know if I'll make another = character.  To be honest, I was pretty glad to leave Sunday.  = I felt like I was coming home from work.  I'm not trying to blame = anyone, so please, no one take this the wrong way.  Anyway, I'll = think about it, but there's a chance I won't go.

>      For those of you = that haven't yet heard, the Everyman
> D&D campaign
> came to an abrupt end on Sunday with the sudden = death of the
> whole party
> in an inescapable location.
>      There's been = talk, of course, about starting another
> campaign, but
> the looming question is:  what level = characters should we all make?  I
> thought I'd give my opinion on this issue, = since it has, in
> fact, changed.
>      I say we all = start out at eighth level, which is where most of us
> left off.  I had once declared that a = first-level "restart"
> would be a lot
> more fun, but I've changed my mind for two = reasons.
>      First, I like the = idea of starting a character "from
> scratch" and not
> artificially advancing him to a high level = right off the bat.
>  Low level
> characters and adventures are more comfortable = for me.  And
> that's why I
> support an eighth-level starting point:  = it is not
> comfortable, all the
> higher level options are not all that clear = yet, and the
> "party dynamics"
> of a group of high power is entirely = different.  I'm for
> shaking up what I
> find comfortable, and learning something else = about the game.  And
> although all of you will play seventeenth level = characters
> someday, even
> starting at first level, I won't, since I'll be = moving.  And
> eighth level
> still gives you twelve more levels of = development, at least.
>      Secondly, I've = been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and
> Return to the
> Tomb of Horrors (gamers have scary-titled = bedside reading boks), and I
> really want to run them;  without a = high-level start for the new D&D
> campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, if = ever.  Since each
> adventure is made up of large sections (these = are, after all, epic
> adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob = will do more
> playing, which
> I'm sure suits the both of us just fine.
>      But just to be on = the safe side this time, I'm playing a
> priest of
> Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew = Potion feat for
> the manufacture
> of healing potions.
>      I say this whole = issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or
> something, and so I'm starting it.  And = now I'm going to bed.
>
> Ron

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0904A.3D933A94-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 06 Feb 2001 08:58:27 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0901A.F818D3E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&DWell, it could have been the situation you were in that made it less fun. Just coming back from a trip, or a long drive, being tired, etc.. The way I always use to determine if I am happy with something is to compare the number of good days versus the number of bad days. If this session was bad news for you and the last five or six were fun then it is just a fluke. Though I cannot possibly know all that goes on inside that smarty brain of yours, so I have a hard time giving advice on it without knowing more information. It would suck though, with you possibly not coming to the Wednesday sessions we would not see you very often anymore. Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone -----Original Message----- From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, John Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:37 AM To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Wow. Things really go downhill when I leave. That's cool, though. I almost feel like it _should_ have happened. Ummm, as far as what level we start out at, I'm fine with at least 5th level, but 8th would be great. It gives us some grounding with our characters. Actually, I don't know if I'll make another character. To be honest, I was pretty glad to leave Sunday. I felt like I was coming home from work. I'm not trying to blame anyone, so please, no one take this the wrong way. Anyway, I'll think about it, but there's a chance I won't go. > For those of you that haven't yet heard, the Everyman > D&D campaign > came to an abrupt end on Sunday with the sudden death of the > whole party > in an inescapable location. > There's been talk, of course, about starting another > campaign, but > the looming question is: what level characters should we all make? I > thought I'd give my opinion on this issue, since it has, in > fact, changed. > I say we all start out at eighth level, which is where most of us > left off. I had once declared that a first-level "restart" > would be a lot > more fun, but I've changed my mind for two reasons. > First, I like the idea of starting a character "from > scratch" and not > artificially advancing him to a high level right off the bat. > Low level > characters and adventures are more comfortable for me. And > that's why I > support an eighth-level starting point: it is not > comfortable, all the > higher level options are not all that clear yet, and the > "party dynamics" > of a group of high power is entirely different. I'm for > shaking up what I > find comfortable, and learning something else about the game. And > although all of you will play seventeenth level characters > someday, even > starting at first level, I won't, since I'll be moving. And > eighth level > still gives you twelve more levels of development, at least. > Secondly, I've been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and > Return to the > Tomb of Horrors (gamers have scary-titled bedside reading boks), and I > really want to run them; without a high-level start for the new D&D > campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, if ever. Since each > adventure is made up of large sections (these are, after all, epic > adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob will do more > playing, which > I'm sure suits the both of us just fine. > But just to be on the safe side this time, I'm playing a > priest of > Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew Potion feat for > the manufacture > of healing potions. > I say this whole issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or > something, and so I'm starting it. And now I'm going to bed. > > Ron ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0901A.F818D3E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D
Well, it could have been the situation you were in = that made=20 it less fun.  Just coming back from a trip, or a long drive, being = tired,=20 etc..  The way I always use to determine if I am happy with = something is to=20 compare the number of good days versus the number of bad days.  If = this=20 session was bad news for you and the last five or six were fun then it = is just a=20 fluke.  Though I cannot possibly know all that goes on inside that = smarty=20 brain of yours, so I have a hard time giving advice on it without = knowing more=20 information.  It would suck though, with you possibly not coming to = the=20 Wednesday sessions we would not see you very often=20 anymore.
 
Robert=20 Lundeen
Billing/Collections=20 Manager
Glyphics=20 Communications
(801) = 365-0500  ext.=20 1269
(801) 652-2693 = cell=20 phone
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Moeller, = John
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:37 AM
To:=20 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com'
Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand = New=20 D&D

Wow.  Things really go downhill when I = leave. =20 That's cool, though.  I almost feel like it _should_ have = happened. =20 Ummm, as far as what level we start out at, I'm fine with at least 5th = level,=20 but 8th would be great.  It gives us some grounding with our=20 characters. 

Actually, I don't know if I'll make another = character. =20 To be honest, I was pretty glad to leave Sunday.  I felt like I = was=20 coming home from work.  I'm not trying to blame anyone, so = please, no one=20 take this the wrong way.  Anyway, I'll think about it, but = there's a=20 chance I won't go.

>      For those of you = that=20 haven't yet heard, the Everyman
> D&D = campaign
> came to an abrupt end on = Sunday with the=20 sudden death of the
> whole party =
> in an inescapable location.
>      There's been talk, of = course, about=20 starting another
> campaign, but =
> the looming question is:  what level characters = should we all=20 make?  I
> thought I'd give my = opinion on this=20 issue, since it has, in
> fact, = changed.=20
>      I say we all = start out at=20 eighth level, which is where most of us
> = left=20 off.  I had once declared that a first-level "restart" =
> would be a lot
> more fun, = but I've=20 changed my mind for two reasons.
>      First, I like the idea of = starting a=20 character "from
> scratch" and not =
> artificially advancing him to a high level right off the = bat.=20
>  Low level
>=20 characters and adventures are more comfortable for me.  And=20
> that's why I
> support=20 an eighth-level starting point:  it is not
>=20 comfortable, all the
> higher level = options are not=20 all that clear yet, and the
> "party=20 dynamics"
> of a group of high power is = entirely=20 different.  I'm for
> shaking up = what I=20
> find comfortable, and learning something else = about the=20 game.  And
> although all of you = will play=20 seventeenth level characters
> someday, = even=20
> starting at first level, I won't, since I'll = be=20 moving.  And
> eighth level =
> still gives you twelve more levels of development, at=20 least.
>      = Secondly,=20 I've been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and
>=20 Return to the
> Tomb of Horrors (gamers = have=20 scary-titled bedside reading boks), and I
> really=20 want to run them;  without a high-level start for the new = D&D=20
> campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, = if=20 ever.  Since each
> adventure is = made up of=20 large sections (these are, after all, epic
>=20 adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob will do more =
> playing, which
> I'm sure = suits the=20 both of us just fine.
>      But just to be on the safe = side this=20 time, I'm playing a
> priest of =
> Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew Potion feat = for=20
> the manufacture
> of=20 healing potions.
>      I=20 say this whole issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or =
> something, and so I'm starting it.  And now I'm = going to=20 bed.
>
> = Ron=20

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0901A.F818D3E0-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 06 Feb 2001 10:32:31 -0700 I am all in favor of re-starting the campaign with high level characters (8th). Though after playing the game and looking back on our old games I think that our game structure needs some work. Given the chance I would like to change two things. I want to add structure to the party and incl= ude a re-roll mechanic. The re-roll mechanic I was thinking of would be Luck. A character gets a luck point at first level and every other level thereafter (3rd, 5th, 7th= , etc). The luck points are used during a module and refresh for the next module. They are spent like they are in Star Wars, giving your character additional d6, 2d6, or 3d6 depending on your character level to add to a dice roll. This takes away the make the save or you die tragedy that happens, but still keeps that possibility with low rolls. The other thin= g that luck would do is you can use the luck point to reduce damage. One l= uck point would reduce a number of damage points equal to your character leve= l. Not a huge help but one that would keep your character from dying. One the party structure part I look back to all of our games that have ha= d allot of players and still ran smoothly and one thread runs through them all... a party leader. Mikes, Jasyns and my Torg, Ron's old school D&D, = and Perilous Deep all had a large parties (I remember Torg sessions with ten people) and things went more smoothly. I think this is because we had a party leader. Most of the time the party leader did make every decision, but the discussions had to go through them in order for it to become law, and one the decision was made we moved on instead of arguing about it for= an hour. The new D&D campaign must be designed around this mentality and a party leader must be established at the beginning. Realistically any gro= up must have a leader or manager for it to function effectively, why should = our party be any different. Think of school with teachers, work with manager= s, armies with generals, mercenary companies with leaders, bands have a fron= t man, circuses even have a ring leader. No one could work in a vacuum, an= d why would other people work with some one who never helps the group or wo= rks with them. They wouldn't, just like at work or in the army you get punis= hed or kicked out. The party could even have a succession of leaders to account for when someone doe not play. Think of Mikes Torg campaign, Hanka was always the leader of the party, when he was not around then JDC was the leader, and = he was not around must people looked to Cullen (scary thought). This would = be important in the everyman campaign because of the fluid nature of the gro= up. We could even have a base of operations and the adventures would take pla= ce in the surrounding area (like the Living Greyhawk campaign, focusing on o= ne kingdom) That would make it all the more interesting when we go to a new kingdom or area that is unknown. I actually had three things to bring up. The last is treasure. I have talked with Ron a bit ago about this and he found an idea at GenCon that most other groups use, strange that we did not think of it. At the end o= f ever adventure we just sell everything that we have, and then split up th= e money between the party members. That way everyone gets the same, no one= is left out because the Wizard cant use the eight magical longswords that we= re found. Everyone can then just buy what they want or take a cut of the sh= are to get a found magical item instead, a cut equal to the cost of the item. Thanks for trudging your way through my long e-mail, I think that if we g= ive this things some thought we can make a campaign that is much better than = the old one, and much more fun. And I don't know what I want to play yet, I = am still sifting through the classes. Robert Lundeen Billing/Collections Manager Glyphics Communications (801) 365-0500=A0 ext. 1269 (801) 652-2693 cell phone > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-rpggroup@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ron Lundeen > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:35 AM > To: 'rpggroup@lists.xmission.com' > Subject: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D > > > > For those of you that haven't yet heard, the Everyman D&D campaign > came to an abrupt end on Sunday with the sudden death of the whole part= y > in an inescapable location. > There's been talk, of course, about starting another campaign, but > the looming question is: what level characters should we all make? I > thought I'd give my opinion on this issue, since it has, in fact, chang= ed. > I say we all start out at eighth level, which is where most of us > left off. I had once declared that a first-level "restart" would be a = lot > more fun, but I've changed my mind for two reasons. > First, I like the idea of starting a character "from scratch" and = not > artificially advancing him to a high level right off the bat. Low leve= l > characters and adventures are more comfortable for me. And that's why = I > support an eighth-level starting point: it is not comfortable, all the > higher level options are not all that clear yet, and the "party dynamic= s" > of a group of high power is entirely different. I'm for shaking up wha= t I > find comfortable, and learning something else about the game. And > although all of you will play seventeenth level characters someday, eve= n > starting at first level, I won't, since I'll be moving. And eighth lev= el > still gives you twelve more levels of development, at least. > Secondly, I've been reading the Rod of Seven Parts and Return to t= he > Tomb of Horrors (gamers have scary-titled bedside reading boks), and I > really want to run them; without a high-level start for the new D&D > campaign, I won't get a chance to for years, if ever. Since each > adventure is made up of large sections (these are, after all, epic > adventures), I'll be doing more DMing and Bob will do more playing, whi= ch > I'm sure suits the both of us just fine. > But just to be on the safe side this time, I'm playing a priest of > Pelor with the Healing domain and the Brew Potion feat for the manufact= ure > of healing potions. > I say this whole issue goes up for vote, or group discussion or > something, and so I'm starting it. And now I'm going to bed. > > Ron > > <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > < > > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > > < well, I have others." > > < --Groucho Marx > > < > > <=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > > > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Lundeen Subject: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 06 Feb 2001 12:24:27 -0700 (MST) A party leader may be the solution all around. I played an event at Gen Con with ten people, and it was utter chaos until one guy started giving orders to everyone and telling the DM what we all do. It took a couple of encounters for everyone to fall in line (namely, me), but once everyone did, things went a lot better--we got through more adventure in the last hour than we had the three hours before that. Nobody likes the idea of kicking out players to make a reasonably sized group, and this party leader idea may be the trick. Perhaps it could be applied to Earthdawn and Star Wars as well, since those games are getting up there in size, too. Ron <===========================================================> < > < "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... > < well, I have others." > < --Groucho Marx > < > <===========================================================> - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: (rpggroup) What I will play Date: 06 Feb 2001 16:34:38 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09084.9D87D402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" After extensive discussion with Bob, I have decided to play a Half-Elf Fighter(6)/Sorcerer or Wizard(1)/Arcane Archer(1). How's that for being from the realm of Minmaxia? John Moeller Firmware Engineer Salt Lake City Firmware jmoeller@enterasys.com www.enterasys.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09084.9D87D402 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What I will play

After extensive discussion with Bob, = I have decided to play a Half-Elf Fighter(6)/Sorcerer or = Wizard(1)/Arcane Archer(1).  How's that for being from the realm = of Minmaxia?

John Moeller
Firmware Engineer
Salt Lake City Firmware

jmoeller@enterasys.com
www.enterasys.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09084.9D87D402-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chrisp338@netscape.net (chris patterson) Subject: Re: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 07 Feb 2001 16:45:18 -0500 I know I don't usually sound in on these things, but I felt I should in this case. On the topic of parties and size, my father quotes a military dictum which states that the maximum size for a group to work together is seven. Even then, the entire group is not necessarily thinking the same thing. Get eight characters and suddenly divergent paths are taken. Hence the evolution of rigid military command structures. Now, while rigid military command structures work well for the military, they may not be ideal for everyone. The problem with this implemenation is that: 1. we have a number of natural leaders in our group. Mike, Ron, and Bob often conflict for leadership 2. this relates to one, when a conflict errupts generally divergent paths occur behind the scenes. Mike's sneaky characters present an excellent example. these scenarios do tend to add to the plot, but they have the effect of complicating matters and forcing the "leader" to compensate. Usually this creates additional scisms. 3. While the leadership method works well for the military or military oriented games (perilous deep) a party consisting of Individuals working toward a common goal (or not) tends not to work out so well. 3 b. other individuals tend to chafe under strict leadership. Me for example. The fact that other characters ignore such "rules" with gleeful abandon simply because their characters have always done so add insult to the injury. 4. This tactic (leadership) tends to cause sleeper syndrome in which those characters/players with less forceful personalities tend to subsume (sleep) until their opinion matters. Usually this is combat. the ubiquitous "pull out the pat" and "wake Anthony up for the called shot burst to the melon" are excellent examples. So, to conclude, while the leadership mechanism provides greater flow, it has its costs in party cohesion. Leadership works well in games with an established authority figure. Starwars has Jedi and Perilous Deep has the Captain. D&D contains no such "leader", and I suspect we will arbitrarily "elect" the loudest voice. Such will lead to the above mentioned problems. Solution? If the leadership idea is the one which you desire: A. base the game around a central authority. The party was established by a King for military purposes. An excellent starting point would be the last module. the King now understands the problem with sending adventurers and thus conscripts recruits to go for the treasure. B. Realize the weaknesses with the game. Traditionally the Patterson's have reponded by making combat gods to accentuate the leadership roles which others in this group take. c. The leader of a party would probably be either a Paladin, Cleric, or Wizard. Fighters seem the natural choice, but think about it, the grunts are generally the warriors and the officers (command) are selected for their intelligence. Anyway, I do not think that a leadership option is best. The negatives outweigh the positives, especially since my opinion is rarely if ever listened to in such structures. As a result I end up playing killers or support characters. No one in our group enjoys playing such characters and frankly neither do I. It seems to me that the overwhelming desire is to save time. The command structure will not necessarily enable this to occur. In many cases it works only to cause additional friction in our group. the examples noted above germane to our group (perilous deep) are also small groups. Is it the size of the group or the command which lends greater efficiency? In recent times, I have come to understand that the large groups at our games are the result of our desire to interact with each other. Something which we don't tend to do in large groups anymore. We must ask ourselves, is our desire to meet and enjoy each others company, or to reach 20th level ASAP? If it is the former, then our speed is an unfortunate by product of our choice. If it is the latter, then the true desire is to role play and not so much to interact. If the latter, then I recommend against a command structure. I don't think it will help our group "save time". Limit the size of the group. Chris __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chrisp338@netscape.net (chris patterson) Subject: Re: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 07 Feb 2001 16:47:03 -0500 Bob, I neglected to send that last message to everyone, could you do so for me? thanks, chris. __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Lundeen" Subject: RE: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 07 Feb 2001 15:47:17 -0700 I'm sure to the amazement of everyone Chris has actually made some goo points (just kidding Chris). > I know I don't usually sound in on these things, but I felt I > should in this case. On the topic of parties and size, my father > quotes a military dictum which states that the maximum size for a > group to work together is seven. Even then, the entire group is > not necessarily thinking the same thing. Get eight characters > and suddenly divergent paths are taken. Hence the evolution of > rigid military command structures. I agree with your dad, I think that large groups tend to take a large Varity of viewpoint so have more trouble working together as a whole. Not just in a military standpoint, but in a office as well. My department has sex people in it, we work together much better than customer service that has 27 people, my employees are better informed and are generally happier. As the leader I can listen to all of the viewpoints without taking 6 hours to do so and none gets lost in the cracks because I can turn to anyone and say "ok, well what do YOU think?" The problem is that we have more than seven people who want to play. And since everyone who wants to play I consider a close friend I could not bring myself to say "John (or Mike, or Chris, or Ron, etc) we have too many people playing, you have to find something better to do on Sunday, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!" > 1. we have a number of natural leaders in our group. Mike, > Ron, and Bob often conflict for leadership I cannot deny this, I have a need to take control of situations, this explains why I have been working as a manager for one company or another for eight years. And that probably is another reason I do it, I am used to being in control. > 3. While the leadership method works well for the military > or military oriented games (perilous deep) a party consisting of > Individuals working toward a common goal (or not) tends not to > work out so well. > 3 b. other individuals tend to chafe under strict > leadership. Me for example. The fact that other characters > ignore such "rules" with gleeful abandon simply because their > characters have always done so add insult to the injury. Actually I believe that a leader is required for any group of people, I cannot think of one group that functions well that does not have a specific leader for the group. Even backyard barbecues have a leader that sets up everything and tells people when the chow is ready. I also agree that some people tend to chafe under strict leadership, in the business world those people don't last in a group very long. I myself have fired employees that felt like they were above the rules that everyone else have to live by, note that these are not life or death rule, but simple easy to follow ones like: show up on time, do what your boss tells you, only take a hour lunch, don't play games while on the clock. I am a very lenient leader for my department, I don't have a lot of rules as long as my employees are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I don't feel like I should have to baby-sit my department. The same hold true for the type of leadership we are talking about with our role-playing group. When I say leader I mean leader, not manager. Taken from a standpoint that I have played games with and without a leader before having a leader is better. Someone who can stop the hour long argument, weigh all sides and make a discussion is natural for the group to function. The leader does not tell everyone what to do all the time, they are just the top end decision makers. As for the chafing part, people in groups who will not take part in the group tend to leave the group quickly. In the military if you are told to stand a post and watch for enemies and you break out a hammock because your tired then you wont last very long in the military. The same holds true for any group, people who don't work together under the leader get ejected (like a sports team or job). > 4. This tactic (leadership) tends to cause sleeper syndrome > in which those characters/players with less forceful > personalities tend to subsume (sleep) until their opinion > matters. Usually this is combat. the ubiquitous "pull out the > pat" and "wake Anthony up for the called shot burst to the melon" > are excellent examples. This is also the basic problem of when a player creates a character that is way focused in one direction that they find themselves useless in any other situation, like a combat god character. When the party is in town and has to talk they see that they cannot do anything (because they made a combat god) and so they zone out until they will be useful. > So, to conclude, while the leadership mechanism provides greater > flow, it has its costs in party cohesion. Leadership works well > in games with an established authority figure. Starwars has Jedi > and Perilous Deep has the Captain. D&D contains no such > "leader", and I suspect we will arbitrarily "elect" the loudest > voice. Such will lead to the above mentioned problems. I think that you are wrong on this one, D&D does have a established authority figure. I will show you this through a process of elimination. It wouldn't be the rouge, too sneaky. Not the barbarian, oh help the thought! Not the monk, they focus too much in introspection and patience. Not the Sorcerer, the game makes it clear that they are mistrusted or though of as "touched" in a bad way. Not Fighter, while good military leaders they lack the finer skills (think Gladiator, not social skills). Not the Wizard, they are seen a reclusive and have the fighter problem but in an all-knowing type, they are usually advisers to leaders. Not the Cleric, leaders have to make sacrifices and clerics just cannot cut it. Not the Bard, they are entertainers, not leaders (though they are a good second choice). Not the Ranger, they are too concerned about the woods and generally more the loner type. Same goes for Druids. That leaves the Paladin, who has a powerful presence on the battlefield combined with diplomatic and clerical skill. They are nobles, versed in the social graces, proud, and valiant. A good leader for a party, and designed that way in the game. I'm, not saying that any of the others could not be leaders, just that the paladin is the all around best leader for a group that does lots of different things. A Bard would be a better leader in a city campaign, a Ranger in a outdoors campaign, a wizard in a Magiclasty, a fighter in a military campaign. Perilous deep forces a specific leader to the party, which is strange for a game. Even in the Star War movies Luke was not the party leader until the last movie, before that Leia was the groups leader. In our home Star Wars campaign we have TWO Jedi's and I don't think that either of them would make a great leader (not to hack on anyone for playing their characters the way they want to). Chris, your character goes off by himself too much and John's character really doesn't do a whole lot. > Solution? If the leadership idea is the one which you desire: > A. base the game around a central authority. The party was > established by a King for military purposes. An excellent > starting point would be the last module. the King now > understands the problem with sending adventurers and thus > conscripts recruits to go for the treasure. Bad idea/good idea. Having a leader outside the party is good, but a leader inside the party is still necessary > B. Realize the weaknesses with the game. Traditionally the > Patterson's have reponded by making combat gods to accentuate the > leadership roles which others in this group take. Combat gods make poor leaders > c. The leader of a party would probably be either a Paladin, > Cleric, or Wizard. Fighters seem the natural choice, but think > about it, the grunts are generally the warriors and the officers > (command) are selected for their intelligence. I talked about this before. > Anyway, I do not think that a leadership option is best. The > negatives outweigh the positives, especially since my opinion is > rarely if ever listened to in such structures. As a result I end > up playing killers or support characters. No one in our group > enjoys playing such characters and frankly neither do I. What is a better one? > It seems to me that the overwhelming desire is to save time. The > command structure will not necessarily enable this to occur. In > many cases it works only to cause additional friction in our > group. the examples noted above germane to our group (perilous > deep) are also small groups. Is it the size of the group or the > command which lends greater efficiency? In recent times, I have > come to understand that the large groups at our games are the > result of our desire to interact with each other. Something > which we don't tend to do in large groups anymore. We must ask > ourselves, is our desire to meet and enjoy each others company, > or to reach 20th level ASAP? If it is the former, then our speed > is an unfortunate by product of our choice. If it is the latter, > then the true desire is to role play and not so much to interact. > If the latter, then I recommend against a command structure. I > don't think it will help our group "save time". Limit the size > of the group. > > Chris > __________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at > http://webmail.netscape.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages > send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your > message. > - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Moeller, John" Subject: RE: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D Date: 07 Feb 2001 18:30:22 -0500 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0915D.F2ABB820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Alright, I need to chime in, too. There is a _major_ problem with limiting the size of the group. There are two ways to go about it, as I see it, both of which have problems. 1. Limit based on loyalty: Impossible, as the GM you basically always pick Dean, and leave someone feeling like they aren't wanted. 2. Limit based on schedule: We have a hard enough time keeping track of what _game_ is on what weekend, let alone what player. Limiting the size is not an option, as you invariably hurt someone's feelings or get into a fight about who was supposed to play on what weekend. So we are left with letting everyone and their dog play in any game. >In recent times, I have come to understand that the large groups >at our games are the result of our desire to interact with each >other. Something which we don't tend to do in large groups >anymore. We must ask ourselves, is our desire to meet and enjoy >each others company, or to reach 20th level ASAP? If it is the >former, then our speed is an unfortunate by product of our >choice. If it is the latter, then the true desire is to role >play and not so much to interact. I don't call what we do social interaction. There is a huge emphasis on squeezing the fuck out of every drop of time to get in as much role-playing as possible in the rather generous thirteen hours which we have allotted ourselves. Any distraction or friendly conversation is eventually smashed by "ANYWAY!!!". I think the emphasis is _definitely_ on character advancement, which is ironic to me because some people talk about how we are advancing too fast. But instead of role-playing, we sit there and bitch at each other about what we got cheated out of, what we're going to get cheated out of, and what the best way to do something is. And we don't even talk about how to do something important, like STRATEGY! The only thing we agree on is to blindly run in and attack and get ourselves SLAUGHTERED. What we're doing isn't fun. I agree, Chris, that smaller parties are better (4 is ideal for me), but who are you going to kick out, and who's going to tell them? No one wants to get stuck with the job. >The negatives outweigh the positives, especially since my opinion is >rarely if ever listened to in such structures. I'm sensing a theme in recent role-playing sessions. Chris, I've been there, and the only advice I have for you is to accept it. Complaining NEVER got me anywhere except ignored. I'm truly sorry. Anyway, I don't agree with all of Bob's points, but what choice do we have? The emphasis is on role-playing, and we don't get anywhere. A party leader is what we need. It may not be the best choice, but at least it's _something_. If it will help, I volunteer to stop playing. --John ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0915D.F2ABB820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RE: (rpggroup) Brand New D&D

Alright, I need to chime in, too.  There is a = _major_ problem with limiting the size of the group.  There are = two ways to go about it, as I see it, both of which have = problems.

1.  Limit based on loyalty:  Impossible, as = the GM you basically always pick Dean, and leave someone feeling like = they aren't wanted.

2.  Limit based on schedule:  We have a = hard enough time keeping track of what _game_ is on what weekend, let = alone what player.

Limiting the size is not an option, as you invariably = hurt someone's feelings or get into a fight about who was supposed to = play on what weekend.

So we are left with letting everyone and their dog = play in any game. 

>In recent times, I have come to understand that = the large groups
>at our games are the result of our desire to = interact with each
>other.  Something which we don't tend to do = in large groups
>anymore.  We must ask ourselves, is our = desire to meet and enjoy
>each others company, or to reach 20th level = ASAP?  If it is the
>former, then our speed is an unfortunate by = product of our
>choice.  If it is the latter, then the true = desire is to role
>play and not so much to interact. 

I don't call what we do social interaction.  = There is a huge emphasis on squeezing the fuck out of every drop of = time to get in as much role-playing as possible in the rather generous = thirteen hours which we have allotted ourselves.  Any distraction = or friendly conversation is eventually smashed by = "ANYWAY!!!". I think the emphasis is _definitely_ on = character advancement, which is ironic to me because some people talk = about how we are advancing too fast.  But instead of role-playing, = we sit there and bitch at each other about what we got cheated out of, = what we're going to get cheated out of, and what the best way to do = something is.

And we don't even talk about how to do something = important, like STRATEGY!  The only thing we agree on is to = blindly run in and attack and get ourselves SLAUGHTERED.

What we're doing isn't fun.  I agree, Chris, = that smaller parties are better (4 is ideal for me), but who are you = going to kick out, and who's going to tell them?  No one wants to = get stuck with the job.

>The negatives outweigh the positives, especially = since my opinion is
>rarely if ever listened to in such = structures.

I'm sensing a theme in recent role-playing = sessions.  Chris, I've been there, and the only advice I have for = you is to accept it.  Complaining NEVER got me anywhere except = ignored.  I'm truly sorry.

Anyway, I don't agree with all of Bob's points, but = what choice do we have?  The emphasis is on role-playing, and we = don't get anywhere.  A party leader is what we need.  It may = not be the best choice, but at least it's _something_.

If it will help, I volunteer to stop playing.

--John

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0915D.F2ABB820-- - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chrisp338@netscape.net (chris patterson) Subject: (rpggroup) More thoughts Date: 07 Feb 2001 18:48:07 -0500 Hear hear John!!! I too had the strange feeling I had been at a long day of work last Sunday, though by the end of it I must say that the day on a whole was a bad one. Things did not start out thusly and they did not change drastically as a result of the finish of the day. Let me start a bit further back. I have noticed in myself of late increased agitation while role-playing. At first I believed this to stem from my impending year long trip. This last Sunday presented a turning point in that opinion. When I called Dean at 9:30 am my thoughts were "humph. . . I bet these morons haven't even left Wendover and won't be back for hour. These ass holes are wasting my precious time!". That much was certainly true (omitting of course that this "time" was not mine alone, but belonged also to you), but at the end of the call I did not feel angry. I felt relieved. Now I had time to do more of the things which were important to me. I discussed this with Nick; he has had similiar problems in the past. Nick suggested that the problem may not rest with role playing in principle, nor with party dynamics, or the group (though these are important) but in me. I now have responsibilites in my life (its about time). Further, these responsibilities ! are important to me. Now I hear my feelings echoed from John. Sunday does seem like work. Why is that? The reason, I suspect, is complex. Let me start with some abstracts. Sunday is power gaming at its finest. Sixteen hours of role playing interspersed with one food break and gleeful abandon of all responsibility. And therein lies the problem. Why is Sunday work and Wedesday fun? Why? Because each of us has things more important than role playing. Eight to ten years ago this was not the case. A saturday, a sunday, hell the entire damn weekend was dead time. Nothing conflicted with role playing. Now we have other responsibilities. Women, work, academics, all of these conflict with role playing. All of us "like" the idea of the Sunday power game. Why? Because it reminds us of a time when we had no responsibilities. Sunday power gaming represents our youth (not that we're old now). Gamming on Sunday requires a vast commitment of time and organization. I must get my volumous reading and writing done before hand. A difficult enterprise. Each of you must also spend time with your girlfriends, boyfriends, and wives and get all the other recreational activities done on these other days. Now we get back to Sundays. Is it any wonder that some of us should feel frustration at not getting the "perfect" game in? No. And we shouldn't expect to. Those days are gone. It's not the inefficiency that is the problem. Did you really get that much more done in the golden years? Did you strive for such perfection then? What is taking the enjoyment out of the game are unrealistic expectations based upon a time we CANNOT return to. So, what to do? Now this little essay infringes upon my last diatribe. Do we need to fundamentally change our role playing style and introduce a command structure? Will that get us closer to our ideal? Did that ideal ever truely exist? If the ideal did not exist then we cannot hope to achieve it. Our desire for efficiency does not now stem from the ideals of the past, but the responsibilities of the present. Now we know how not to fix our problems. So, again, what to do? Now we get back to Wedesday (and my horrible misspelling of it). What makes Wedesday so much more enjoyable that Sunday? It not really the group size. Even with a large group Star Wars was overall enjoyable last week. No, its the time span. Wedesday has a more realistic time span. Like Sunday, Wedesday was chosen for its convinience to our group. Unlike Wedesday, Sunday has no time limit. Limit the role playing time on Sunday. Play for eight hours. By limiting the time we play, we allow more time for the other things in our life, whether those activities invove wine, women, children, books, or work. The reason Sunday feels like work it that suddenly it has become work. We are required to put in long hours, overtime is a requirement not an option, and like work we have unrealistic ideas about what we ought to get done. I have attempted to identify here both where our unrealistic ideals arise from and what these ideas are now conflicting with, our new responsibilities. I suspect that simply limiting the amout of "work" on Sunday is only a partial answer and that some/many do not share my exasperations. But problems do exist and I believe we are not paying enough attention to WHY they exist as we go about offering patch solutions. Well, this seems as good a place as any to stop, though I would like to offer some notes on my last message: 1. I like how Bob presented my message. 2. I like how Bob managed to "steal" my analysis of group leaders and present it as his own. The mark of a good manager. 3. The paladin, while a natural leader is a connumdrum as he/she is also a weak fighter, bad cleric, immpossible to min/max, and a pain in the ass for parties consisting of multiple alignments. As such listing the paladin as the "leader" presents a problem as few desire to play one. 4. The comments on leadership and individuals was meant from the D&D party perspective. Individuals in our group tend to make characters with their own goals and desires who just happen to be traveling together, often in highly artificial circumstances, "uh. . . you just happen to be in the town in the middle of shit nowhere, and really, there isn't much else to do but follow this group in the jaws of hell. . ." 5. Whereas every group tends to have a leader, a barbeque does not tend to have a rigid authority hierarchy. 6. Our role play group is not Bob's work bitch. And thank God for that. We cannot really fire someone. Nor can we truely discipline them. Moreover, I don't suspect that most of us come to role play so someone can tell us what to do. That's what work is for. 7. Bob's emphasis on the superiority of a party leader is a bias (especially when you consider that he would most like to be the party leader), just as my emphasis on not having such a structure presents a bias. 8. No leader will weigh all the options in an equal manner. That's what managers do, or attempt to do. A leader is not concerened with the human cost of the outcome. A leader makes decisions on what's best for the cause. Our decisions relect what will keep the majority of our party alive. That is management. Management as you know mitigates arguments, but does not necessarily increase efficiency (curious that). 9. My chafing is a personal problem. Ejecting said player is not increasing efficiency by good leadership, its increasing efficiency by downsizing. 10. Bob, you missed the point of specialized characters. They are the cause of their inception strong leadership, not which disallows their use in other situations. An example here. Specialized player, "I think we should comb the catacombs for clues" Leader, "I THINK WE SHOULD INTERACT SOCIALLY AND FIND CLUES, THIEVES GO TO THE STEETS, FIGHTERS GO TO THE FIGHTERS GUILD". Spe, "but, why not look at other options. . . Leader, "I SAID NOWWWWWWW". overly simplified, but somewhat true. Often, by not being allowed to express an opinion or by being ignored on a regular basis I have simply gone to sleep, only to be awakened for combat. Now, in such a circumstance, what kind of character do you think I am predisposed to create and advance, A highly skilled, but ignored balanced character? Or a character that can at least not be ignored somewhere? I see your point, but the cause of the problem lies elsewhere. Chris __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ - To unsubscribe to rpggroup, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe rpggroup" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.