Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 160
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 5:30 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #160
champ-l-digest Monday, January 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 160
In this issue:
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: Multipower Questions - Reply
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Levels and Limitations
Re: A painful question
RE: How much damage should guns do.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
A totally off-the-wall question
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: A painful question
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
RE: How much damage should guns do.
Re: A painful question
Re: A painful question
Re: A painful question
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Levels and Limitations
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: A totally off-the-wall question
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: A painful question
RE: A painful question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:35:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
>
> MC> That's correct. In fact, there are rifles that can fire pistol ammo
>
> They are called submachineguns. Or useless. :)
Sometimes they are called carbines ;)
>
> MC> and pistols that can fire rifle ammo.
>
> Only very small caliber rifle ammo, such as .22LR and .22 Magnum. Anything
> much more powerful than that is likely to break your wrist.
Or fairly low-powered rifle rounds; there's some pistols that fire .454 (I
think) which is technically a rifle round. There isn't really a firm
distinction between rifle and pistol. In any case, the problem with firing
rifle ammunition from a pistol is more that its a waste (the propellant doesn't
finish burning before the bullet exits the muzzle) than because its excessively
hard to fire.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 13:11:25 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions - Reply
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"SM" == Stephen McGinness <MCGINNESSS@parliament.uk> writes:
SM> Rat gave an example of 2x END on the multipower which was a bad example
SM> because the MP does not inherently cost END to use. :-)
No, it is a good example specifically because the MP does not inherently
cost END to use. There is no reason why Charges on an MP reserve should be
treated any differently from x2 END on an MP reserve, or Focus for that
matter. An MP with Focus does not mean that the reserve is the Focus; it
means that the powers in the Multipower are the Focus (singular, because
all of the slots in a Multipower are considered to be a single power; cf
Adjustment Powers).
Given your example character, as the GM I would wing it much as I did my
charges example: your MP reserve gets 'Costs END' and perhaps x2 END if you
really want it. But the slots do not, unless you want x2 END on slots, in
which case I would let you take x2 END twice on the reserve (one affecting
the reserve's use, one being a 'common slot' limitation).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rLPNgl+vIlSVSNkRAjdaAKCCihwX5Eh4gCVYl4sJr1Nv1lzf+QCZAQWx
W2OptS1iHeRq/VnFPMA4YIA=
=LTBs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:44:25 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"GH" == Guy Hoyle <ghoyle1@airmail.net> writes:
>
>GH> Now, this would seem to me to be a classic case of putting the charges
>GH> on the multipower itself, since he's not restricted to a certain number
>GH> of charges per arrow; however, the rules don't permit it.
>
>That is why we have GMs to interpret the rules for their campaigns.
>
>In this case, my initial thought is to put Charges on the reserve and
>nothing on the individual slots. If the Charges modifier happens to be an
>advantage, it increases the cost of the reserve but does not increase its
>size (ie, a 30 point reserve with a +1/2 advantage costs 45 points but is
>still a 30 point reserve). If a limitation, it does not decrease the cost
>of your slots. I'll let you have the 0 END cost on the slots for 'free'.
>But the active cost of the reserve is still restricted by campaign
>guidelines (gotta draw the line somewhere :).
Unfortunately, this answer, while not unreasonable, works poorly. The
Multipower in question is _more_ restrictive than buying Charges for each
individual slot, but overall costs more because the individual slots are not
limited.
I'd rule that every slot gets the Charges Limitation, as does the Reserve
cost, but their should be an additional Limitation. The power is more
limited than just buying Charges on the slots, so it should be cheaper.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:33:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 gilberg@ou.edu wrote:
> >But being useable with only the blaster rifle is more limiting than being
> >useable only with, say, eyebeam blasts. The blaster rifle can't be used as
> >often: It can be taken away, while the eyebeam blasts can't.
>
> Yes, but you already get a limitation on the blaster rifle power.
> If you want to make this argument, since punching is basically always
> available, while eye-Beams could conceivably been taken away, then levels
> for punch would cost more than levels for eye beams.
Two points that I see here...
1) If the levels are OAF Blaster rifle, only for use with Blaster Rifle
then they are most certainly more limited than CSLs with only one of
those limitations. Examples follow:
CSLs with Blaster Rifle: you can take the blaster rifle away, if the
character picks up another blaster rifle then they can use the levels.
If the CSLs with Blaster Rifle are also OAF Blaster Rifle, then taking
away the Blaster Rifle robs the character of those levels (and,
incidentally, gives them to whoever's got the blaster rifle).
CSLs OAF Blaster Rifle: Technically, you could buy CSLs with /anything/
and make them an OAF. The diffeerence here is something like this:
+1 level with ranged weapons, OAF Targetting Computer
+1 level with ranged weapons, OAF Blaster Rifle
+1 level with ranged weapons, OAF Magic Foobar
All of these cost the same number of points and should give the same
utility. If you want the levels on the Blaster Rifle to /only/
increase your CV when using the Blaster Rifle, you need to put a
limitation on them, because they're less useful than a Targetting
Computer or a Magic Foobar.
If these aren't the limitaitons being disucssed and I'm confused, well,
blame work for that.
2) You /can/ take away someone's punch. Entangle, STR Drain, etc...
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:31:02 -0600 (CST)
From: gilberg@ou.edu
Subject: Re: A painful question
>> A couple of us were
>>"famous figures" from history. (Pontius Pilot and Nostradamus.)
>
>
>Pontius Pilate.
>
>Normally, I wouldn't have said anything, but I am trying desperately to
>dispel the vision of a man in a toga, flying a fighter jet....
Well, yeah, my mistake.
He had a thing about modern tech--he couldn't even drive a car.
-Tim Gilberg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:53:08 -0500
From: "Johnson, Adam" <AJohnson@clariion.com>
Subject: RE: How much damage should guns do.
Comments below
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Johnson
Product Support -- Head Lab Resident Area Tech (RAT)
ajohnson@clariion.com
Life's a long song... but the tune ends too soon for us all
Jethro Tull, "Life's a Long Song," Living in the Past
- ----------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stainless Steel Rat [SMTP:ratinox@peorth.gweep.net]
> Sent: Monday, 25 January, 1999 12:59
> To: Champions
> Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "MC" == Mike Christodoulou <Cypriot@concentric.net> writes:
>
> MC> That's correct. In fact, there are rifles that can fire pistol ammo
>
> They are called submachineguns. Or useless. :)
>
[Adam says:]
Not necessarily. Ruger puts out a very fine carbine that fires 9mm and .40 S&W ammunition. Very nice, very easy to handle and operate. Many police departments would not call it "useless."
> MC> and pistols that can fire rifle ammo.
>
> Only very small caliber rifle ammo, such as .22LR and .22 Magnum. Anything
> much more powerful than that is likely to break your wrist.
>
[Adam says:]
There are target pistols produced by Thompson and Remington (just to name a couple of companies, I believe there are a few others, not to mention custom-built) that make pistol-sized (albeit a bit longer than your average pistol) that fire rifle calibers such as .308, .223, .221 Hornet, etc. I believe there is also a .30 Carbine pistol out there made by IAI, if memory serves correctly.
> --
> Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
> Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
> PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:14:25 EST
From: "Virgil Buttram" <dasbutz@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>>>While I'm not familiar with the specific weapons you cite, I
disagree.
>>>The advantage of the rifle is that it is far more accurate at range.
>>
>>This has always been my impression as well. I understood that a 9mm
bullet
>>would do the same damage whether fired from a pistol or a rifle, and
that
>>the rifle's only advantage was added range.
>>
>>So, Max, I think you want to compare the two types of ammunition, not
the
>>two types of weapon. (I'm not sure that has any effect on your
question,
>>though, it may be purely semantic.)
>>
>
>
>That's correct. In fact, there are rifles that can fire pistol ammo
>and pistols that can fire rifle ammo. The damage is done by the ammo
>itself.
>
>When figuring the damage for the ammo, you're essentially looking at
>one thing: Momentum. Mass times Velocity. The mass is determined
>by your caliber (more or less), and the velocity is determined by the
>amount of powder (and a few assorted minor modifiers such as burn rate,
>barrel length, and powder mix).
Which is why a pistol round fired from a rifle will do more damage than
the same round fired from a pistol - significantly longer barrel. Also,
rifle rounds tend to have higher length to diameter ratios, thus more
bullet mass, allowing more powder in the round. This is why a 5.56mm
rifle round does more damage than a 9mm pistol round, fired from the
same length of barrel.
For more (and better) explanations of this, see BTRCs 3G3 (Previous
edition was known as Guns!Guns!Guns!).
In the Hero System, decide how much damage you want to do and FX it from
there.....
My 2 points worth...
Randy Buttram
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:47:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: A totally off-the-wall question
What does UAC stand for in DOOM & DOOM II?
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"I don't care where I go, as long as it ain't here..."
George Thorogood, "Gear Jammer"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:03:58 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
qts wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:27:07 -0600, Guy Hoyle wrote:
>
> >Say you have an archer character who carries six different types of arrows:
> >normal arrows, boxing glove arrows, glue arrows, liferaft arrows, boomerang
> >arrows, and rocket arrows. He always carries twenty arrows in his quiver,
> >though the exact number of each type of arrow varies every time he goes out.
> >He seems to know what he's going to need for each mission, and always seems
> >to have the right number of arrows for each occasion: if he needs ten rocket
> >arrows and ten boxing glove arrows, that's how many he has on hand; if he
> >needs twenty liferaft arrows, that's how many he has.
> >
> >Now, this would seem to me to be a classic case of putting the charges on
> >the multipower itself, since he's not restricted to a certain number of
> >charges per arrow; however, the rules don't permit it.
>
> Don't they? Didn't spot anything in the HSR to say that. And if there
> is, and you don't like it, change it.
BBB (softbound) pg 115
"Power Limitations may be applied to Multipowers. If the Limitation
applies to a slot within the Multipower, then the Limitation serves to
decrease the cost of the slot, but not the Multipower. If the Limitation
is applied to the whole Multipower, then the Limitation reduces the cost
of the point reserve and the slots. This is the only way that the Reserve
can be Limited."
Example 1:
30 Arrow MP, OAF
2u 4d6 RKA, 4 charges
2u 12d6 EB, 4 charges
Example 2:
20 Arrow MP, OAF, 4 charges
2u 4d6 RKA
2u 12d6 EB
So in Example 1 you get 4 shots with each slot. Example 2 you get
a total of 4 shots.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:34:26 -0700
From: Curtis A Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
Subject: Re: A painful question
gilberg@ou.edu wrote:
>>> another story.) We had to be incredibly inventive and creative to get
>>> through this campaign, and 2 of the 4 characters ended up dying.
> >I see it as being inherently masochistic. I know *intellectually* that some
> >people get great enjoyment out of this, just as I know *intellectually* that
> >some people get great pleasure out of being tied to a post and flogged. But
> >*emotionally* I Just Don't Get It.
> You don't play Call of Cuthulu, do you? One thing was that we knew
> And I wouldn't argue as such except for the fact that it seems to be
> completely true in your case. By arguing that a game where one is
> lower-powered is equivalent to being flogged, you place yourself quite well
> into the munchkin camp. Some people can do just fine without cosmic power,
> thank you very much.
>
> -Tim Gilberg
(with some editing above for further commentary).
I'm not exactly sure what Erol was was saying "you call this fun?"
about, but to me the campaign you described would not be fun. No, I
don't play Call of Cthulu. I don't play in games where character's dying
is assumed. I build and play character's for the long haul, I usually
don't feel that I've known a character untill I've played them for 30-50
XP. The complaint I would have with the campaign you described earlier
isn't the power level, but the lethality level. A game where characters
die right and left _is_ not fun (comedic campaigns where that is assumed
and you have no attachement to characters being the exception- ie
Paranioa). Automatically assuming munchkinism because the person doen't
like the lethalitaly level is absurd.
To me, and this may be a matter of taste, gaming is about enjoying a
co-operative story. I've always felt that the 'do the wrong thing and
you die' type games is one of those holdevers from AD&D/wargaming, just
like hack 'n' slashing,; or not caring about characterization, but just
about how tough you are.
And I will mention (as came up last year when a discussion like this
came up) as a GM I _never_ kill any character that plays in my
campaigns, unless the player asks for it- in any genre. All the
campaigns I've played in within the last 10 years all are GMed that way
as well. Maybe it's just that I have high quality players who don't
think "Ah, he won't kill us, let's do something stupid!!!' but it has
never caused a problem.
- -Mhoram
- --
What is called glory, I think, is mostly the relief you feel after
you've fought and lived through battle without getting maimed.
- -Harry Turtledove Krispos Rising
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:39:43 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
From: Max Callahan <mcallahan@home.com>
<snip>I think that the damage values for firearms, rifles in particular, are
>wrong. Case in point a .50 caliber Desert Eagle (a pistol) is rated at
>2D6+1 with a +1 stun mult, a 7.62 Nato Rifle round is also rated at 2D6+1
>with a +1 stun mult. From a real world perspective this is flat wrong, the
>rifle round has an order of magnitude more energy behind it
An order of magnitude? What's your reference? I doubt it is much more than
double the muzzle energy, certainly not an order of magnitude. It
_definitely_ isn't an order of magnitude greater in momentum.
<snip>
>I think my point here is that rifles just don't do enough damage compared
>to pistols, so fixing that would be good, but the consequences of upping
>rifle damage are icky, what does everybody else think.
You are in a game designed for superhero role playing initially. Player
characters are supposed to _never_ die by simply being shot. Furthermore,
players are supposed to survive attacks that can wreck cars or even tanks.
This tends to do something to the damage system.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:40:14 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
From: Mike Christodoulou <Cypriot@concentric.net>
<snip>
>
>
>That's correct. In fact, there are rifles that can fire pistol ammo
>and pistols that can fire rifle ammo. The damage is done by the ammo
>itself.
Only half right. The muzzle energy and momentum (not the same thing) _do_
increase with longer barrel length, within limits. The degree of increase
tends to be greater with more powerful rounds, thus a rifle bullet is more
likely to have significant more power in a rifle than in a pistol, but a
pistol round would not.
>When figuring the damage for the ammo, you're essentially looking at
>one thing: Momentum. Mass times Velocity. The mass is determined
>by your caliber (more or less), and the velocity is determined by the
>amount of powder (and a few assorted minor modifiers such as burn rate,
>barrel length, and powder mix).
Actually, many people (including the people at Hero Games) like muzzle
energy more than momentum for determining the theoretical damage done by a
round. Muzzle energy is mass times velocity squared, rather than just mass
times velocity. The muzzle energy of the NATO round is about twice the power
of the .50 pistol, but _not_ twice the momentum.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:24:46 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
Subject: RE: How much damage should guns do.
But, what everybody wants to know is... what kind of penalty do you get on
your weaponsmith roll to use an Arcane Mana Crystal to juice up an Imperial
Phasor Pistol? And, is the Imperial Phasor Pistol a valid focus for your
CSL's with the aforementioned eye beams?
Sorry, usually I get half way through an email that contributes nothing to
the conversation and stop myself but today I thought I'd just let it ride.
I got your muzzle velocity right here.
BRI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:41:40 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: A painful question
Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
> At 09:23 AM 1/24/99 -0800, Ell Egyptoid wrote:
> >> The question I'm asking is, what are the advantages and
> >> disadvantages of a low power campaign versus a high power
> >> campaign? What does a high point campaign do that a low
> >> point campaign doesn't, and vice versa?
> >
> >No difference at all, provided the players aren't power-gamers
> >or munchkins...
>
> My general perception is, use the power level appropriate to the type of
> story you're trying to tell -- both the theme, and the means of expressing
> it. Some stories are best for agents, some for superheroes, some for
> godlike beings, and some for a mixture.
I'll have to agree with these two. In one of my favorite campaigns I played
in, we had three characters apiece. A low, medium, and high powered
character. Depending on the game, we would bring the appropriate character.
Granted; the low powered characters were in the "high" category for this list,
but it turned out very well.
The only problem with high powered games is at the point where it's better to
spread your energy blast rather then buy area effect. At least that was the
complaint of the martial artists in the highest powered game. (40d6 was a
common attack, while a 100d6 haymaker could be done through proper
application...)
Since then, the games I've been in and ran have topped out around 30d6, but
the points tend to be higher. We just have more rounded characters now.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:32:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A painful question
> Mickey Spillane said "Whenever I get stuck in a plot I have two guys
come
> through the door with guns." In a heroic level game this can be an
> effective tactic.
Spillane was just emulating Tolkien there...
J.R.R. once said in an Esquire interview:
"Whenever I get mired down in the overall story I'll
have two Southrons burst into the tavern with loaded crossbows".
> Although in Fantasy Hero, it will get you looked at funny
Remember the old Boot Hill - AD&D crossover section in the back
of the old DM Guide ;)
==
=========================== Elliott aka The Egyptoid ==
=== JLA: Justice League Alabama === Central HQ ===========
=== http://www.sysabend.org/champions/elliott/index.html =
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:44:24 -0800 (PST)
From: miq@teleport.com
Subject: Re: A painful question
Curt Hicks says:
> > In a message dated 99-01-23 22:06:39 EST, sbennie@dowco.com writes:
> >
> > > The question I'm asking is, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
> > > a low power campaign versus a high power campaign? What does a high
> > > point campaign do that a low point campaign doesn't, and vice versa?
>
> I've read through about half of the responses now. Probably the very next
> post will raise the same point but let me ask this anyway:
>
> Does a 'low power game' necessarily equate to a 'low POINT game' ?
>
An excellent query. In my experiences, no. In fact the latest campaign,
the power levels are averaging around the typical bookish average, 12dc,
8cv, 30ish defenses. These are not hard numbers, but averages. If you
have higher defenses, lower your cv, if you do more damage drop your
defenses. All in all, pretty typical for a medium level game. However the
characters are written up as 200 base +100 disads, and don't have to be
ballanced. No hunteds are taken as disads, no DNPC's with out a strong
necessity, mostly its physical, psyche, vulnerables, and similar.
Characters seem to be in the 350-380 range, and all have a well defined
idea of their skill sets. This particular campaign might actually become a
5-team, as so far we have an "earth", an "air", a "light", a "water" and a
"sound" elemental base for special effects, and thus far no one is really
stepping in another's realm for skillsets.
On the converse, high power does not necessarily mean high points.
In the infamous Sam Bell game, where characters hit the 1000 point level
and huge amounts of damage was being dished up, even in the early days
(gosh 15 years ago now that I think of it) the starting power level was
higher than typical, 80-85 strength bricks, martial artists with 20+ dcv
when punching (and some of the martial artists could do 15-17d kicks).
This was at standard starting levels, 250-275 points. I remember my
character started with something like 12 levels in martial arts and 2
overall levels with the intent of eventually making all the levels Overall,
and had a 14d punch. Eventually I was right, he had 15 overall levels in
the last game of the campaign he played in. (And its a damn good thing
too, cuz he needed them!)
- --
__
Miq Millman miq@teleport.com
Tualatin, OR
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:56:54 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
<<If you put the OAF on the pool, you don't have to buy it again for the
slots, but the -1 modifier will still apply.>>
So, what you're saying is, that if you put the OAF limitation on the pool,
you don't buy the limitation again for each slot?
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:15:02 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"MC" == Mike Christodoulou <Cypriot@concentric.net> writes:
>
>MC> That's correct. In fact, there are rifles that can fire pistol ammo
>
>They are called submachineguns. Or useless. :)
Not always. They can be useful, and are often full rifle size. For example,
a .40 rifle can fire specialized .40 rifle ammo, or whimpier pistol ammo.
This allows it to be readily usable when the rifle ammo runs out, since the
pistol ammo is more common.
>MC> and pistols that can fire rifle ammo.
>
>Only very small caliber rifle ammo, such as .22LR and .22 Magnum. Anything
>much more powerful than that is likely to break your wrist.
There are a number of special pistols capable of firing full-sized rifle
rounds, such as .223, 30-06 and 7.62mm NATO. Granted, most are one shot
exotic targeting pistols, not usually practical guns.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 15:42:22 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"JA" == Johnson, Adam <AJohnson@clariion.com> writes:
JA> Comments below
Ummm... yeah. Next time wrap at column 75, and try editing down the
citations a bit.
Thanks.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rNctgl+vIlSVSNkRAs0SAKDwco6G5A5qrSq1I6NpAKChUNrF7gCffl5W
745lQTEVgTm92k3ShUuaiiA=
=CIJm
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:47:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Chris Hartjes <chris@ergmusic.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On 25-Jan-99 I could have sworn that Christopher Taylor said:
>
> Depends how you mean that when you wrote it up. As you have written it,
> that is legal (if the OAF applies to all powers in the multipower you can
> take it on the pool, which you meant to be Multipower Pool, not power pool
> I assume) but if you mean you get the OAF from the pool AND an OAF on the
> item you cannot do that (i.e. get a -2 total on each slot).
>
That's fine, but explain this to me:
Why the heck would you buy a multipower *this* way:
30 Munchkin Power, OAF(-1)
6u Cool Power #1
6u Cool Power #2
- ----------------------------------
E-Mail: Chris Hartjes <chris@ergmusic.com>
Date: 25-Jan-99
Time: 15:44:39
This message was sent by XFMail
- ----------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 15:53:02 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"N" == Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com> writes:
N> 1) If the levels are OAF Blaster rifle, only for use with Blaster Rifle
N> then they are most certainly more limited than CSLs with only one of
N> those limitations. Examples follow:
Two-point combat skill levels are purchased for a specific power or
maneuver, and they may be used *ONLY* with that specific power or maneuver.
Any limitation that attemps to restrict the use of that CSL to that power
is redundant, thus worth no bonus.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rNmugl+vIlSVSNkRAkjXAKDpWwnSLs7BP3qK21rOX2v0oBGQhACgxAyQ
PUnfIghRAWx7ow3AcnfTSe8=
=PSW3
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 15:40:50 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com> writes:
AJ> Sometimes they are called carbines ;)
A machine gun (MG) is a weapon with an action cycled directly by firing,
either by recoil or gas blowback. A sub-machine gun (SMG) is a weapon with
a spring or gas blowback driven bolt that cycles the action. The purpose
of the bolt is to slow down the cyclic to a manageable level.
A carbine is an SMG that fires rifle ammunition.
Just so we're all clear on the terms (just don't get me started on the
proper definition of 'rifle' vs. 'shoulder arm' :).
[...]
AJ> Or fairly low-powered rifle rounds; there's some pistols that fire .454
AJ> (I think) which is technically a rifle round.
.454 Casul is a pistol round. There is also a .454 rifle round (for the
so-called 'Elephant Gun') which is to .454 Casul as .50 Magnum is to .50
Browning MG.
AJ> There isn't really a firm distinction between rifle and pistol.
Pistol rounds are usually 2:1 l/w, with short cartridges that are roughly
the same diameter as the round. Rifle rounds are usually 3:1, with longer
cartridges that are much larger in diameter than the base round.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rNbSgl+vIlSVSNkRApP5AJwOFeaXPg3eWU+pgPsMGLUdPov58wCg8yL4
sCKsORalpMF2sbH7EyRwtJk=
=K930
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 16:50:02 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: A totally off-the-wall question
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com> writes:
MS> What does UAC stand for in DOOM & DOOM II?
"We are not 'Weyland-Yutani'! Honest! (That Would Get Us Sued)"
Actually, "Union Aerospace Corporation" (according to dmfaq66a.txt).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rOcKgl+vIlSVSNkRAkiGAKDgxJTkCay4OmTw3rUG88Ss72Qv7ACffNdQ
9TyYpyqPt+cKIYA/JC2WGyI=
=zjIO
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1999 16:02:57 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"CH" == Chris Hartjes <chris@ergmusic.com> writes:
CH> Now, my question is this: If you apply a limitation to the Control part
CH> of the multipower, do you have to buy that same limitation for each
CH> slot of the multipower?
Yes. Think of it this way. Say you start with a 30-point reserve, and you
want a 2D6 RKA with Armor Piercing. You need to increase the size of the
reserve to 45 points, which is mathematically identical to adding a +1/2
advantage to the reserve cost. Putting a limitation on the reserve cost is
the converse of that. But it is more restrictive in that for advantages
you can have any combination of advantages in your slots, but for
limitations anything on the reserve must be on the slots as well.
There used to be something called the 'common' slot limitation. If all of
your MP slots have different limitations, you could take the smallest total
bonus and apply it to the reserve. This went away with the fourth edition.
[...]
CH> It would seem to me that the player is getting to apply the OAF limiation
CH> *twice* to the powers in the pool. Am I wrong?
No, he is only getting the OAF once for each power: 40 AP w/ -1 is 20 RP,
divided by 10 for the ultra slots is 2. He is also getting a bonus on the
reserve.
Thing to remember is that because it is a multipower, all the slots are
considered to be a single power, regardless of the Focus limitation. This
is particularly nasty for Foci since if you steal or destroy one slot you
have stolen or destroyed all of them.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2rNwBgl+vIlSVSNkRAiP/AJ4sIuDceGncli6G+ZFZwbcNo6bd5QCeJKVn
yz3SW2OMSwbWJqnkhmLClSM=
=cLUj
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:50:13 -0600 (CST)
From: gilberg@ou.edu
Subject: Re: A painful question
>I'm not exactly sure what Erol was was saying "you call this fun?"
>about, but to me the campaign you described would not be fun. No, I
>don't play Call of Cthulu. I don't play in games where character's dying
>is assumed. I build and play character's for the long haul, I usually
>don't feel that I've known a character untill I've played them for 30-50
>XP. The complaint I would have with the campaign you described earlier
>isn't the power level, but the lethality level. A game where characters
>die right and left _is_ not fun (comedic campaigns where that is assumed
>and you have no attachement to characters being the exception- ie
>Paranioa). Automatically assuming munchkinism because the person doen't
>like the lethalitaly level is absurd.
But assuming Munch when someone calls playing a low-powered game
masochistic is.
Anyway.
I should probably have explained more. The two characters that died
did not do so until the final session--this game ran about (I think) 5
sessions. So all four of us survived through this storyline until the final
climax. One of the characters was killed by a pack of werewolves looking
for revenge for a slain bretheren--the GM gave him opportunity to escape,
but he decided to play up the role-play potential and just sit there scared
beyond belief and let himself die; this was the choice of the player.
The other character, our commander, was killed by the other two
after his treason became known to us. We could have brought him in, but we
decided to but a bullet through his head instead as we attempted to escape
the corrupt agency--we did.
The GM put us in very frightening and dangerous situations where we
had to use creativity, in character, to survive. We did. However, he was
careful to place us on the edge while still allowing us to stay alive--death
wasn't a definate thing.
>To me, and this may be a matter of taste, gaming is about enjoying a
>co-operative story. I've always felt that the 'do the wrong thing and
>you die' type games is one of those holdevers from AD&D/wargaming, just
>like hack 'n' slashing,; or not caring about characterization, but just
>about how tough you are.
See above. This wasn't a "do the wrong thing" type of game. We
knew it would be intense and we would have comparitively little power, but
we had opportunity to survive. Much of the fun was succeeding while all
odds said we should fail.
>And I will mention (as came up last year when a discussion like this
>came up) as a GM I _never_ kill any character that plays in my
>campaigns, unless the player asks for it- in any genre. All the
>campaigns I've played in within the last 10 years all are GMed that way
>as well. Maybe it's just that I have high quality players who don't
>think "Ah, he won't kill us, let's do something stupid!!!' but it has
>never caused a problem.
The fact that this gaming group ran series of short campaigns
allowed us to be pretty free with possible death. It happened, and it was
realistic. In one game, every character died when Chicago was nuked. An
interesting one. If a certain session was really popular, we'd go back and
play a sequal or two. Like I said, I survived that low-powered normal game,
but I didn't do too well in some other sessions. In that high-powered one,
I lost two characters, actually, in two separate sessions. Both were very
much in-character deaths, however.
Now, there are some games when certain death is actually fun.
Paranoia, for example. Every death is a blast--really. I also played a
AD&D game at GenCon where the premise was that everyone was going to
die--award given for most heroic death. (I won, BTW.) Of course, Con games
are a different matter. Death is more doable as there aren't huge
attachments to characters.
-Tim Gilberg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:17:47 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
Subject: RE: A painful question
<RANT>
You know, there is a happy medium between players always dying and players
never dying. Playing a game you always win is just as boring as playing a
game you always lose.
In my experience, the fights that are fun involve a scenario where the
players can take measures to minimize the threat to themselves by taking
cover, creating crossfires, exploiting vulnerabilies and thinking before
they act. If you run a game where there's no threat to the player, I don't
see much adventure. Likewise if all the players do is run away because they
keep getting pounded, where's the payoff?
I'm talking about important fights here. Often you will present players with
fights where you already know how it's going to go by over/undermatching the
opponents in order to force the players to jump through a hoop. But, with
real fights, my philosophy is that the players have the option to get
themselves killed if they're not careful. This doesn't mean that there's one
magic combination that lets them win, it just means that the setting and
conditions should dictate the tactical approach. Maybe I'm a freak looking
for a circus but I just get all wound up over small group tactics.
Now, if you like to run a high stess game where the players freak out all
the time, okay. Likewise, if you want the players to cruise around chatting
with people and solving puzzles, fine. These are opposite ends of a
lethality continuum. I'm guessing that most games live in the middle
somewhere. I lean a little more to the 'dangerous' end of things as a matter
of personal taste.
On the Lethality Scale from 3 to 18, where 3 is The Road Warrior and 18 is
The Carebears Movie, I live comfortably around 8. One of my players has just
suggested to me that 6 is a more accurate figure but we're splitting hairs.
Aside from that, the level of lethality you like in your game has absolutely
no direct bearing on how much character development goes on. I like lots of
mystery and intrigue punctuated with frightening violence. Why? For realism.
Violence is frightening and tends to come up when least expected.
</RANT>
*I don't know whose email I saw the rant tags on but I really liked them.
Later
BRI
] gilberg@ou.edu wrote:
]
] >>> another story.) We had to be incredibly inventive and
] creative to get
] >>> through this campaign, and 2 of the 4 characters ended up dying.
]
] > >I see it as being inherently masochistic. I know
] *intellectually* that some
] > >people get great enjoyment out of this, just as I know
] *intellectually* that
] > >some people get great pleasure out of being tied to a post
] and flogged. But
] > >*emotionally* I Just Don't Get It.
]
] > You don't play Call of Cuthulu, do you? One thing
] was that we knew
]
]
] > And I wouldn't argue as such except for the fact
] that it seems to be
] > completely true in your case. By arguing that a game where one is
] > lower-powered is equivalent to being flogged, you place
] yourself quite well
] > into the munchkin camp. Some people can do just fine
] without cosmic power,
] > thank you very much.
] >
] > -Tim Gilberg
] (with some editing above for further commentary).
]
] I'm not exactly sure what Erol was was saying "you call this fun?"
] about, but to me the campaign you described would not be fun. No, I
] don't play Call of Cthulu. I don't play in games where
] character's dying
] is assumed. I build and play character's for the long haul, I usually
] don't feel that I've known a character untill I've played
] them for 30-50
] XP. The complaint I would have with the campaign you described earlier
] isn't the power level, but the lethality level. A game where
] characters
] die right and left _is_ not fun (comedic campaigns where that
] is assumed
] and you have no attachement to characters being the exception- ie
] Paranioa). Automatically assuming munchkinism because the
] person doen't
] like the lethalitaly level is absurd.
]
] To me, and this may be a matter of taste, gaming is about enjoying a
] co-operative story. I've always felt that the 'do the wrong thing and
] you die' type games is one of those holdevers from
] AD&D/wargaming, just
] like hack 'n' slashing,; or not caring about
] characterization, but just
] about how tough you are.
]
] And I will mention (as came up last year when a discussion like this
] came up) as a GM I _never_ kill any character that plays in my
] campaigns, unless the player asks for it- in any genre. All the
] campaigns I've played in within the last 10 years all are
] GMed that way
] as well. Maybe it's just that I have high quality players who don't
] think "Ah, he won't kill us, let's do something stupid!!!' but it has
] never caused a problem.
]
] -Mhoram
] --
] What is called glory, I think, is mostly the relief you feel after
] you've fought and lived through battle without getting maimed.
] -Harry Turtledove Krispos Rising
]
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #160
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:14 PM