twilight2000-digest Wednesday, September 3 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 052 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Nice and quiet! Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Re: Nice and quiet! Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Merc2000 Re: Merc2000 Do you know? Re: Merc2000 Re: Todays subject Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Tactical actions (was RE: Nice and quiet!) Gamemaster v. "the players" Gamemaster v. "the players" Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Re: Gamemaster v. "the players" Need Rule book Re: Merc:2000 Columbia Cartel RE: Need Rule book Re: Need Rule book Merc or realmerc OK Re: OK Re: Merc or realmerc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:26:34 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Nice and quiet! David Reed wrote: > > > What are people talking about in here at the moment? I just entered this > > mailing list and I'm little bit out of this conversation. > > I'd like to ask this is someone still playing Twilight2000 v.1 ? > > It *was* nice and quiet... ;-) Nobody was discussing anything. Yeah, and now we're swamped by more Finns! The neighbourhood sure is going to hell in a handbasket... :-) By my count we have five already! It kinda shows which country in the world is the most militant... Perkele ja suomalainen olen minakin, terve Jysky ja Pietu. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:22:31 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Robert Beck wrote: > Lastly, the player playing the Gunny was a Bradley infantryman like 10 > years ago. So, he seems to know a lot about the Bradley. Most times though > he just comes off as a know-it-all and chronic nitpicker, two habits I > really despise. I like the info on the Bradley, don't get me wrong, but > sometimes he takes his expertise to the extreme. It's not like he was in > the Army yesterday. He asked me today (two days after the session) why the > Bradley didn't see the AT-4 and AGS-17 crews with it's thermals long before > they got a chance to fire and didn't take them out. He also said I should > at LEAST rescind the death of the three Ukranians as it should never have > happened. I've polled the other players, and they don't agree with him. > Regardless, I've said that if he had an objection, he should have voiced it > then, not two days later. I've also said that the results of the battle > stand. The team acted rashly and they're lucky they didn't lose more. My > question to you is, what is your opinion? Do you think the Bradley should > have done as he said? My take on it was, the guy he had commanding the > Bradley, while a former Abrams crewmember, had never been commander, (he's > in charge of personnel placement and had recently assigned him there) and > had failed his Obs roll when looking for targets. I assumed that meant he > had a lot on his mind just trying to run the crew, and for that crucial > moment, missed the targets. Plus, there were several other buildings near > those positions occupied by civillians and fires, all providing their own > little heat sources. I figured that added to the obfuscation. When he > realized they were there, he took them out. That's the best he could do. Of > course, I don't think the player took that as a sufficient answer. Just > asking a second opinion. 1. It's a game. Sometimes total realism can not be had. 2. So they had a poor guy manning the thermal sight. His fault! 3. Don't backtrack on your judgement calls. 4. Only NPCs died due to this, right? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:36:25 -0400 From: Scott Lazzari Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) A quick little bit of background. I used to be a M2A2 Bradley gunner with the #rd BDE, 1st AD from 90-92. As for the Bradley seeing the At-4 team with the thermals - there are alot of variables that can come into play. If the At-4 team was in any way obscured/behind cover, then, no the thermals wouldn't be able to see them. Thermals are *great*, but they can't see through things. With the fires and buildings around, it is very feasable that the AT-4 team could have been missed by the Bradley crew. Also remember the skill of the gunner / commander, and the general fog of battle will also hamper things. I can't remember how many times I got surprised by the things (opfor) that scared the hell out of me from popping out of 'nowhere'. Of course, they hardly ever got me Scott Lazzari slazzari@tciconsulting.com http://www.beta.com/users/lazzari/ ICQ UIN: 2098756 - ----- 08:41 AM 8/29/97 -0700,Christopher Callahan you wrote ----- >Greetings All: > > Due to some sort of conspiracy which his ISP is involved in, Rob >Beck is unable to post to the mailing list (though he still receives other >people's postings). He wrote up a synopsis of his gaming group's >activities, and asked me to forward it to the list. Enjoy... > >-C > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:03:45 -0500 >From: Robert Beck >To: Christopher Callahan >Subject: Twilight Question > > >The group started with 10 people, 4 of which were PC's. At it's height >there were 27 people, 21 NPC's and 6 PC's. They've gone on quite a little >recruitment drive. Now, the group is minus 4 of those NPC's. How'd they get >here? Good question, and it leads me into a question at the end of the >discussion. >the team started running south of Kalisz with an M2A2 and 3 Hummers. They >ran into three cavalrymen from the 4-12th Cavalry (stragglers) and >convinced them to link up. Not having any better ideas, they did just that. >They reconnoitered and planned to assault a Soviet MP checkpoint, but >caught a Soviet convoy moving up to the checkpoint for a night rest. With >some decent planning, the 13 of them assaulted and disabled the convoy and >MP garrison. They found that the 4 5-tons carried *surprise* diesel and >gasoline. So, they took all the vehicles. They were in a bind trying to >crew them all, (they also picked up a UAZ and 3/4 ton), but they managed >(barely). Luckily, they didn't have to fight like that. They lost the 3/4 >ton moving overland and abandoned it, and decided to check out the town of >Olesno. At the time, Olesno had just acquired a new garrison from the 129th >MRD, and was kind of adjusting when they first checked it out. They planned >a night raid in which one character (a Marine Infantry Gunny) nearly got >himself killed trying to go hand to hand with a Russian, and another (a >Norwegian Jager) earned the nickname "Nightmare" when he snuck under a BTR >and pulled the guard standing next to it under, followed by breaking his >spine and then using the guard's weapon to disable several of his comrades >from beneath the vehicle. With some confusion, they secured the town and >holed-up a day, reorganizing. They planned on staying longer, but when a >reconnaissance element showed up looking for what happened to the garrison, >they booked (after destroying it, naturally). They picked up a BMP-2 and >BTR-70 from the garrison they wrecked. >The team then headed to Dobrodzien, after hearing of American vehicles >headed in that direction. There they met Captain Warren and B troop of the >116th ACR. They learned quickly of her healthy disrespect for Russians and >her devotion to getting out of the war (the unit has decided that they're >staying in the war and anyone who doesn't is a coward or traitor). Needless >to say, the group wasn't vocal about their feelings. They spent two days >there, after GIVING B troop two of the tankers (steep rent) performing MNT >and enjoying some R&R. >They also picked up 4 more stragglers from the 256th/5th ID, one of which >was a PC. >Once they began moving, the Gunny, who was kind of running the unit, >decided they should probe Opole. He figured everything else had been such a >cake walk, that they should be able to crack Opole and maybe open up some >running room for other survivors of the 5th. Well, the recon team that went >in (One Force Recon, one Ranger, the Jager, and one of the cav scouts-I >have the typical problem of too many spec ops types PC's in my game) got >jumped as they tried to approach Opole. They later figured it was either >some Desantniki survivors or more likely Spetsnaz, that had nothing better >to do. You should have seen the random roles I made to determine how bad >these guys were. Well, they extricated themselves from that (barely), >nearly killing one NPC and two PC's, with a little help from part of the >group's main body (one Hummer and a TOW launcher). You see, while all this >gunfire and explosions was going on near the town, the town garrison, >forming the bulk of the OMG for the 129th MRD, sent out a recon element. >They got nailed and HARD with RAW grenades from the recon team and their >BRDM took a TOW hit. So, the Sovs sent out something a little bigger, like >a T-80, some BMP's, a couple of BTR's, and a lot of infantry. The Gunny, >who had only just arrived on scene with more backup, started planning a >spur of the moment ambush with the Hummers and the Bradley, but the Sovs >didn't take the bait, and settled for shelling them with 122mm for awhile. >The group, needless to say, backed off. They also discovered that the Sov >Desantniki/Spetsnaz had left some claymore surprises for them at their base >camp. Took them a while to disarm them. >Ok, now the guy playing the gunny was upset at the recon element for >letting themselves get jumped, and "didn't see how it could happen", and >was mad because the Soviets wouldn't come out and play. The group decided >to withdraw some distance east to Czestochowa. They reconned the ruins and >set up in the little village of Klobuck for, I think it was three or four >days. During that time, they picked up 4 Ukranian stragglers from the 38th >TD, (right, they were marauders looking for a meal ticket-which the group >suspected, but they gave them the benefit of the doubt), two more U.S. >stragglers from the 3-77th Armored/2nd Brigade of the 5th (Oh, forgot to >mention that the group is primarily from the 3-143 Infantry/2nd Brigade of >the 5th) and a Marine Major PC, you guessed it Force Recon. He took defacto >command of the group, mostly because everyone was sick of following the >Gunny. That same night they were set upon by a well armed group of >marauders, including a rickety old T-72 with very few shells left (like >they knew that). The marauders also had a BTR that got one of the Hummers, >but the crew escaped, with minor burns. Between the Bradley and the Mk-19 >equipped Hummer, they toasted the marauders. The mads weren't very bright, >anyway. >>From the survivors of the 256th they picked up, they knew of the prison >camp at Zdunska Wola (which one PC had escaped from), so they resolved to >hit it, hopefully liberate the prisoners, and make a B-line for Krakow, >which they've heard is a free city, but not much else. They reconned >several towns in the area and found a preponderance of Polish cavalry (11th >Border Guards). Skirting them, and with some excellent Tracking rolls >finding an auxillary road through the forest, they approached Zdunska Wola >from across the Warta. They had intended to recon it and maybe persuade the >garrison to give up the POW's, in a very Kelly's Heroes kind of fashion. Me >being the type to reward creative ideas like that, I figured that the >Captain in charge of the camp was actually a just and fair man who didn't >like to see soldiers waste away, but who was trapped by duty and a lack of >ability to get the POW's out of the area. This is where the PC's were >supposed to come in. Of course, they blew my plans out of the water. The >Ranger and an Infantryman went in to recon the town, found the POW camp, >and the horse stables. They were almost spotted by a roving patrol, but >dodged them. On their way out, the patrol reacuired them, and followed them >rather stealthily, hoping to find out where they'd come from. Well, they >were good, but the Ranger was better, and he kept getting the feeling they >were being followed, so he hunkered down and waited for a sign. The Poles >used the old cav trick of holding your horses down, but eventually the >horses grew tired of this (the Ranger was VERY patient) and the cav guys >decided they'd make a break for the town. To this point, the Poles had not >been aggressive. Well, the Ranger saw them trying to run, and trying to >maintain secrecy (like the patrol wouldn't be missed), started sniping the >riders. Well, they figured out quick what he was doing and fired back....a >lot. They lost five men and had seven horses injured, but the remainder >escaped to report the attack. This is when all hell REALLY broke loose. The >Poles began sending out more patrols and putting the town on alert. Rather >than even waiting for a report, the Major and Gunny both agreed that the >situation had been compromised and they HAD to attack the town NOW! You >heard it right. Not waiting for the Ranger's report, they saddled the two >Hummers up and sent them south of the town to await the Bradley and BMP. >(Why?) They were also under the erroneus impression that the Poles had >fired first! Fog of war. Well, as soon as the Hummers were in place, they >ran into a cav patrol and a firefight ensued. They lost one Hummer (damaged >and recoverable), had one of the best NPC's (a female Polish-American >Infantry SFC named Wojanski) nearly killed when a grenade went off too >close and caused a nasty ass concussion and lost one of their combat >engineers to gunfire, (he was crewing the other Hummer). You see where this >is going? >The PC's figure that they're in with both feet, so they send the BMP and >M2, fully crewed and carrying a full load of passengers (combat squads the >Gunny had formed from the PC's/NPC's not crewing vehicles) right down the >main road to the town. The same road the Poles EXPECT to see more >Americans! Well, the Pole cavalry had an AT-4 and AGS-17 crew set up at >different spots on that edge of town, and they opened up, destroying the >BMP and it's crew. The passengers were able to bail out. The crew, btw, was >three of the Ukranians. The AT-4 blew off the turret and destroyed the >engine. The driver bought the ranch from some nasty 30mm grenade shrapnel. >Well, the Bradley neutralized both these positions, and then proceeded to >where the Ranger had finally gotten a chance to say the POW compound was. >After some more fighting, and some more dead cav troopers, the Poles >attempted to call a cease fire. Luckily for the PC's, they accepted. The >Poles wanted to know why the hell they'd attacked them. The Major blurted >out "Because you're unlawfully holing our troops!" or words to that effect. >*Please* The Polish captain nearly laughed at him, and reminded him that in >war, prisoners are taken. He then asked if the Major would prefer if he >radio to Pact High Command that it was the advice of a U.S. Major that NATO >troops not be taken prisoner, but instead just be shot, lest the Americans >get angry and attack said POW camps. That lightened things up a bit. The >Captain was very upset, but figured they'd each did a fair amount of damage >to the other and was willing to leave it at that. He was even willing to >give up the POW's, provided the team did a little job for him... >More on that later. >Lastly, the player playing the Gunny was a Bradley infantryman like 10 >years ago. So, he seems to know a lot about the Bradley. Most times though >he just comes off as a know-it-all and chronic nitpicker, two habits I >really despise. I like the info on the Bradley, don't get me wrong, but >sometimes he takes his expertise to the extreme. It's not like he was in >the Army yesterday. He asked me today (two days after the session) why the >Bradley didn't see the AT-4 and AGS-17 crews with it's thermals long before >they got a chance to fire and didn't take them out. He also said I should >at LEAST rescind the death of the three Ukranians as it should never have >happened. I've polled the other players, and they don't agree with him. >Regardless, I've said that if he had an objection, he should have voiced it >then, not two days later. I've also said that the results of the battle >stand. The team acted rashly and they're lucky they didn't lose more. My >question to you is, what is your opinion? Do you think the Bradley should >have done as he said? My take on it was, the guy he had commanding the >Bradley, while a former Abrams crewmember, had never been commander, (he's >in charge of personnel placement and had recently assigned him there) and >had failed his Obs roll when looking for targets. I assumed that meant he >had a lot on his mind just trying to run the crew, and for that crucial >moment, missed the targets. Plus, there were several other buildings near >those positions occupied by civillians and fires, all providing their own >little heat sources. I figured that added to the obfuscation. When he >realized they were there, he took them out. That's the best he could do. Of >course, I don't think the player took that as a sufficient answer. Just >asking a second opinion. >Well, I hope the story was interesting. You can post it to the list if you >like. I still can't send to it. It might make for some interesting reading. >Take it easy. > >Rob. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 01:19:53 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Nice and quiet! Just decided to write something myself... I was GM in Twilight:2000 v.1 few years ago, but I bought v.2.2 1996 with Mercenary-rules. So that's it. BTW...Merc:2000 is quite good! Ja saatana, kyllä minäkin suomalainen olen (damn finnish!) >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:26:34 -0400 >From: Matt Aistrich >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Re: Nice and quiet! > >David Reed wrote: >> >> > What are people talking about in here at the moment? I just entered this >> > mailing list and I'm little bit out of this conversation. >> > I'd like to ask this is someone still playing Twilight2000 v.1 ? >> >> It *was* nice and quiet... ;-) Nobody was discussing anything. > >Yeah, and now we're swamped by more Finns! The neighbourhood sure is >going to hell in a handbasket... :-) By my count we have five already! >It kinda shows which country in the world is the most militant... >Perkele ja suomalainen olen minakin, terve Jysky ja Pietu. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 01:28:07 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) I have my own opinion as GM for this one... Because writer, I think, is GM in Twilight:2000, that means that, what he decided that time in play stays. If GM changes his opinion days after incident, players lose their respect to GM. I believe that what GM says in play, stays, players agree... >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:22:31 -0400 >From: Matt Aistrich >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) > >Robert Beck wrote: > >> Lastly, the player playing the Gunny was a Bradley infantryman like 10 >> years ago. So, he seems to know a lot about the Bradley. Most times though >> he just comes off as a know-it-all and chronic nitpicker, two habits I >> really despise. I like the info on the Bradley, don't get me wrong, but >> sometimes he takes his expertise to the extreme. It's not like he was in >> the Army yesterday. He asked me today (two days after the session) why the >> Bradley didn't see the AT-4 and AGS-17 crews with it's thermals long before >> they got a chance to fire and didn't take them out. He also said I should >> at LEAST rescind the death of the three Ukranians as it should never have >> happened. I've polled the other players, and they don't agree with him. >> Regardless, I've said that if he had an objection, he should have voiced it >> then, not two days later. I've also said that the results of the battle >> stand. The team acted rashly and they're lucky they didn't lose more. My >> question to you is, what is your opinion? Do you think the Bradley should >> have done as he said? My take on it was, the guy he had commanding the >> Bradley, while a former Abrams crewmember, had never been commander, (he's >> in charge of personnel placement and had recently assigned him there) and >> had failed his Obs roll when looking for targets. I assumed that meant he >> had a lot on his mind just trying to run the crew, and for that crucial >> moment, missed the targets. Plus, there were several other buildings near >> those positions occupied by civillians and fires, all providing their own >> little heat sources. I figured that added to the obfuscation. When he >> realized they were there, he took them out. That's the best he could do. Of >> course, I don't think the player took that as a sufficient answer. Just >> asking a second opinion. > >1. It's a game. Sometimes total realism can not be had. > >2. So they had a poor guy manning the thermal sight. His fault! > >3. Don't backtrack on your judgement calls. > >4. Only NPCs died due to this, right? > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:29:40 +0300 From: Mikko Pesonen Subject: Merc2000 I like very much Merc2000. What do you all think about it? What about its weapon systems? Our game group uses system called Real-Merc, about what Pietu might have told about because we are in same play group, what do you about it? Finland Rulez... ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 04:49:05 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Merc2000 Merc:2000 rulez... Well, in my opinion at least. Bad thing you can't find anything for it from Internet. Because I am GM in Merc:2000 (I use Twilight:2000 v.2.2 rules) I would happily get every material what you can find, but noo.... Yes, Finland rulez ;) >Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:29:40 +0300 >From: Mikko Pesonen >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Merc2000 > >I like very much Merc2000. What do you all think about it? What about >its weapon systems? Our game group uses system called Real-Merc, about >what Pietu might have told about because we are in same play group, what >do you about it? > >Finland Rulez... ;) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 07:07:30 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Do you know? Just remembered one WWW-site, where you can find something useful (or maybe not, but hey! Try at least), check out http://www.webrpg.com, there is even discussion forum for Twilight:2000. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:58:44 -0700 From: Hale Subject: Re: Merc2000 Mikko Pesonen wrote: > I like very much Merc2000. What do you all think about it? What about > its weapon systems? Our game group uses system called Real-Merc, about > what Pietu might have told about because we are in same play group, what > do you about it? I like M2K also, but most of my players and myself prefer the much harsher world of T2K. TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 10:03:35 -0700 From: Hale Subject: Re: Todays subject Mikko Pesonen wrote: > What are people talking about in here at the moment? I just entered this > mailing list and I'm little bit out of this conversation. > I'd like to ask this is someone still playing Twilight2000 v.1 ? Not much. TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 10:24:17 -0700 From: Hale Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Christopher Callahan wrote: > My question to you is, what is your opinion? Do you think the Bradley should > have done as he said? No. The thermals only make it easier to see in the dark, the operator must still identify all targets and decide which to engage. > failed his Obs roll when looking for targets. This means that thermals or not, he did not see or properly identify the threats. > for that crucial moment, missed the targets. Bingo > Plus, there were several other buildings near those positions occupied by civillians > and fires, all providing their own little heat sources. I figured that added to the > obfuscation. Confusion, gota love it. > When he realized they were there, he took them out. That's the best he could do. Of > course, I don't think the player took that as a sufficient answer. Well it sounds as though you have a minor problem player, the next time he starts in on realism just explain that that it would not enhance game play and is therefore not going to be used. > Just asking a second opinion. You got it. I don't know if it will help but there it is. TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:38:25 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: Tactical actions (was RE: Nice and quiet!) > Just decided to write something myself... I was GM in Twilight:2000 v.1 > few years ago, but I bought v.2.2 1996 with Mercenary-rules. So that's > it. BTW...Merc:2000 is quite good! I haven't opened my Merc2000 or Gazetteer in ages... Perhaps I should Their on the shelf with all the rest of my T2k, DC, and ME supplements. The only part of T2k and Merc that I really liked (v2+) was the "static" initiative-based combat threading. Some of the best recent games have followed in it's footsteps, B5 among them. There's a lot of discussion on the Trav mailing list about tactical simulation systems (initiative et al). Anyone on this side have a favorite system? I know there are proponents of the T2k v1.0 system, Phoenix Command-style point based systems, and others. I'm trying to iron out a new "house" revision, so lemme know what works! I'm leaning well away from anything that takes time to calculate for players (how many hesitations, how many points, etc), but willing to discuss it. ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 19:04:14 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: Gamemaster v. "the players" Howdy. There's been a lot of discussion on the list lately about whether or not a GM acted "correctly" or if his decision was in line with a player's perception of reality, and I was wondering how many GMs out there have similar problems? I agree with the consensus that the GM acted correctly (and realistically). Why do some players think that their high tech toy makes them invulnerable/omniscient, just because nobody else thought to bring one? I've only had one real problem in many years (knock on formica), at least that my senility permits me to recall; a player had a problem with the severity of a wound done him by a neotech 10mmHV caseless battle rifle (Millenium's End genre, Columbian cartel equipped with new SE Asian toyz). It hit him in the arm, HARD (at or near the point of avulsion), and he had a problem with "why he couldn't do anything with the other undamaged parts of his body, off-side arm, legs, etc." (He was having some problems with consciousness, blood loss, and shock, too.) As a group, the other players and myself told him to shut up and take a nap. He still whines today. ;-) All in all, I've had good groups, and other than the (to be expected) seconds-long wrangling/whining/pleading for mercy, everyone is willing to play by the rules, even when they hurt. (I normally cheat in the players' favor anyway. Otherwise they'd never last more than one or two adventures. "He who lives by the rifle, shall die, quickly, by the rifle.") What do y'all do with players who NEVER accept the "sharp end"? Do you have those wannabe Jedis? *shudder* Would you invite them back? While we're ranting about players... What's the reasonable maximum number for a session? The most I've had (for a DC game) was 12, and if the players hadn't all been close, and well-behaved, it would've been WAY too many. Anyone have a favorite number? ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 19:08:10 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: Gamemaster v. "the players" Howdy. There's been a lot of discussion on the list lately about whether or not a GM acted "correctly" or if his decision was in line with a player's perception of reality, and I was wondering how many GMs out there have similar problems? I agree with the consensus that the GM acted correctly (and realistically). Why do some players think that their high tech toy makes them invulnerable/omniscient, just because nobody else thought to bring one? I've only had one real problem in many years (knock on formica), at least that my senility permits me to recall; a player had a problem with the severity of a wound done him by a neotech 10mmHV caseless battle rifle (Millenium's End genre, Columbian cartel equipped with new SE Asian toyz). It hit him in the arm, HARD (at or near the point of avulsion), and he had a problem with "why he couldn't do anything with the other undamaged parts of his body, off-side arm, legs, etc." (He was having some problems with consciousness, blood loss, and shock, too.) As a group, the other players and myself told him to shut up and take a nap. He still whines today. ;-) All in all, I've had good groups, and other than the (to be expected) seconds-long wrangling/whining/pleading for mercy, everyone is willing to play by the rules, even when they hurt. (I normally cheat in the players' favor anyway. Otherwise they'd never last more than one or two adventures. "He who lives by the rifle, shall die, quickly, by the rifle.") What do y'all do with players who NEVER accept the "sharp end"? Do you have those wannabe Jedis? *shudder* Would you invite them back? While we're ranting about players... What's the reasonable maximum number for a session? The most I've had (for a DC game) was 12, and if the players hadn't all been close, and well-behaved, it would've been WAY too many. Anyone have a favorite number? ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 20:26:15 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Twilight Question (fwd) Well, 1st thing is this.................you are the gm. Ex-army bradley man isn't. I am exmilitary (like many on the list), but i don't say this or that shouldn't have happened....................... and i frequently play while those without military or even combat experience GM. If he thinks he should've seen the AT weapons via thermal, remind him that equipment failures during combat are commonplace.....(and this i know firsthand) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 21:13:23 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Gamemaster v. "the players" David Reed wrote: > Howdy. > > There's been a lot of discussion on the list lately about whether or not a > GM acted "correctly" or if his decision was in line with a player's > perception of reality, and I was wondering how many GMs out there have > similar problems? Very few, only when the GM has forgotten something that he should have taken into account. > (and realistically). Why do some players think that their high tech toy > makes them invulnerable/omniscient, just because nobody else thought to > bring one? Hey, that's what powergaming's all about... :-) > seconds-long wrangling/whining/pleading for mercy, everyone is willing to > play by the rules, even when they hurt. (I normally cheat in the players' > favor anyway. Otherwise they'd never last more than one or two > adventures. "He who lives by the rifle, shall die, quickly, by the > rifle.") What do y'all do with players who NEVER accept the "sharp end"? > Do you have those wannabe Jedis? *shudder* Would you invite them back? My gaming groups have had a fairly tough policy from the beginning, i.e. character's aren't kept alive by the GM unless they really deserve it... So players are used to losing characters and take care when making plans. > While we're ranting about players... What's the reasonable maximum number > for a session? The most I've had (for a DC game) was 12, and if the > players hadn't all been close, and well-behaved, it would've been WAY too > many. Anyone have a favorite number? My problem has usually been too few players, not too many. I must say that with three players I feel the GM is in complete control -- the problem is that you often have to bring in NPC team members or let people play multiple characters (something I'm especially loathe to allow) to round out the group. I would say 4-6 players is an optimal number, depending in part on the game and on how comfortable the players are with the rules. Another thing is, that I hate players who only show up for sessions every once in a while, and that also becomes a problem with multiple players. For Paranoia the optimal is, of course, 6 players. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 22:48:07 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Need Rule book Hi all, I've been a lurker for awhile and a long time gamer. Recently a nearby game store liquidated their stock. They had a bunch of T2 adventures (which I picked up) but not the basic T2 ver 2 rule book. I don't own a copy ot T2000 v2. Anyone know where I can pick one up? Thanks, Mark H. Walker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:19:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Hruggek@aol.com Subject: Re: Merc:2000 Columbia Cartel Really if you want to know about the cartels just watch movies. They are not true nut give you a good idea of what to do. Scarface would probably be a good one to start with. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:09:35 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: Need Rule book > I've been a lurker for awhile and a long time gamer. Recently a nearby > game store liquidated their stock. They had a bunch of T2 adventures > (which I picked up) but not the basic T2 ver 2 rule book. I don't own a > copy ot T2000 v2. Anyone know where I can pick one up? Dunno about any other email order shops, but Igor's (don't know the number/url) usually has everything, and I can recommend Gamesmasters (800)TEX-GAMES here in Houston, who may or may not have a new or used copy of v2 in stock at either location. ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 01:57:23 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Need Rule book Thanks David, I'll try them. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 10:18:12 +0300 From: Mikko Pesonen Subject: Merc or realmerc Sorry about my mistake... I thought Mr Pietu had told you about our system called real merc... He will tell you soon =) We play with 3-4 players... We now play almost only Merc2000. It's so hard to make Tw2000 realistic to play because guns are hard to get out of game and there is too much bullets... Sorry about my bad english... =) Trust No One... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 11:39:01 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: OK Ok. Thanks for the answers! I have been noticed that one guy from my game-group has get himself here. ( Hello Mikko. ) Mikko has been wrote something from " Real Merc ", and I think it is time to tell about it. The " Real-Merc " is just normal merc:2000 with a one new rule. We use only half hitpoints of normal in game and weapons damages are normal. Its very deadly, but I think it is realistic. ( I think that players like it also, do you Mikko? ). The NPC also are more easier to eliminated. Even pistol can be dangerous. We have also use sometimes my big-brothers invented hit-system. Generally, it make possibility to aim quick-shots and aim other hit locations at aimed shot. Shot are not easier than in normal games. We also have add laser-aim rules from GDW: Traveller new era game. ( With a laser pin-pointer you can shot 3 aimed shot at one time, but only for short ranges and if you are aim that target first.) If you are interested at hit-system, I can sent it here it takes about one A4 and are very easy to use. I think thats all for this time, I hope that you understand my english. " Mr. Nobody " ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 06:44:48 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: OK I could use some other hit system, at least in my campaign. I am on, for sending that system here. (I am quite lazy after all ;) ) >We have also use sometimes my big-brothers invented hit-system. Generally, >it make possibility to aim quick-shots and aim other hit locations at >aimed shot. Shot are not easier than in normal games. We also have >add laser-aim rules from GDW: Traveller new era game. ( With a laser >pin-pointer you can shot 3 aimed shot at one time, but only for short >ranges and if you are aim that target first.) > >If you are interested at hit-system, I can sent it here it takes about one A4 and are very easy to use. > >I think thats all for this time, I hope that you understand my english. > >" Mr. Nobody " > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 11:37:15 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Merc or realmerc > It's so hard to make Tw2000 realistic to play because guns are hard to > get out of game and there is too much bullets... > You lost me here! Please explain! ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #52 ************************************