twilight2000-digest Thursday, August 5 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 062 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: Other electricty generating ideas for Twlight: 2000 Re: electrical systems Re: Other electricty generating ideas for Twlight: 2000 Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:18:09 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: PC Motivation - --=====================_44606337==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:53 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Vanquer wrote: [Comments Inline, major snippage] > > I hate the Alignment system of D&D, but I'm not looking to start an > > argument about that. The options (as I see them) are: > >Probably because you do not understand it well enough, but I won't add fuel >to the argument and go into another OTP. Oh, I understand it just fine. It's really nothing against D&D, I just don't like pigeonholing a character into one of a finite (and small) number of predefined "personality classes." Palladium's Recon & Advanced Recon had something similar & I didn't like that either. I prefer being able to draw from an open-ended pool of advantages/edges and disadvantages/flaws, as found in GURPS, Top Secret SI, the Hero system, and Shadowrun. > > 1. No psychological background > > 3. Player develops PC's profile during course of play > > 2. Player independently creates the character's profile at generation > > 4. Player picks by drawing a few cards, just like for NPC's > > 5. Referee picks as in #4 above. > >I go with a combination of 2&3 myself. Basically running with a profile at >the start, and having them adjust their PC during the course of play. I generally support 2&3 as well. Both as a player and a referee. > Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any >role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the >concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to >occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment >because the advantages run that way now. Oh, I definitely concur here. And in regard to cheating: bad things may happen to bad PC's, but an evil PC who is consistently backed up by a good roleplayer will and should be rewarded for his trouble. Conversely, a decent and moral PC played by some cheating munchkin bastard will quickly find himself caught in a custom-tailored version of Hell on Earth. ~ Snake Eyes - --=====================_44606337==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 08:53 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Vanquer wrote: [Comments Inline, major snippage] > I hate the Alignment system of D&D, but I'm not looking to start an > argument about that. The options (as I see them) are: Probably because you do not understand it well enough, but I won't add fuel to the argument and go into another OTP. Oh, I understand it just fine. It's really nothing against D&D, I just don't like pigeonholing a character into one of a finite (and small) number of predefined "personality classes." Palladium's Recon & Advanced Recon had something similar & I didn't like that either. I prefer being able to draw from an open-ended pool of advantages/edges and disadvantages/flaws, as found in GURPS, Top Secret SI, the Hero system, and Shadowrun. > 1. No psychological background > 3. Player develops PC's profile during course of play > 2. Player independently creates the character's profile at generation > 4. Player picks by drawing a few cards, just like for NPC's > 5. Referee picks as in #4 above. I go with a combination of 2&3 myself. Basically running with a profile at the start, and having them adjust their PC during the course of play. I generally support 2&3 as well. Both as a player and a referee. Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment because the advantages run that way now. Oh, I definitely concur here. And in regard to cheating: bad things may happen to bad PC's, but an evil PC who is consistently backed up by a good roleplayer will and should be rewarded for his trouble. Conversely, a decent and moral PC played by some cheating munchkin bastard will quickly find himself caught in a custom-tailored version of Hell on Earth. ~ Snake Eyes - --=====================_44606337==_.ALT-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:57:47 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: PC Motivation Subject: Re: PC Motivation > Vanquer wrote: > > > I know that I played a Soviet tank commander, from Rumania, in my second > > T2k game simply because I wanted something different with everyone playing > > NATO. I was the highest ranking character with the lowest effective rank in > > the unit (American, then NATO, then other members of units get position > > according to the rules). > > Heh, I always thought this would really piss non NATO characters off. My players > tend to ignore this and go with seniority (nationality aside, theres reasons why > that Russian army PC is a major I always considered that a chuckable rule. US divisions (the 5th Mech. for one) were assigned to German commanders. US soldiers didn't get preferential command unless it was their vehicle or unit to begin with, and vive versa. Pact guys could be incharge if anyone would follow them. Usually after a few fire fights that was considered adequate for the players usually. > > While I've never really needed the alignment system in any game except > > D&D/AD&D, I'm a major proponent for it. I believe that a well-developed > > personality goes waaay beyond the alignment, but alignment is a good place > > to start. Also, I've definitely found it of much greater use than the "cards > > system" for developing an NPC's personality. > > Personally I think the alignment system is fine if its *just* a basis for a > character. IMO the alignment system or personality generation has no place in t2k. I never used it, and ignored the players attempt to utilize it. Usually after the first couple sessions that was put to rest also. You knew the PC after the first few tight spots. Loonz Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:14:46 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: PC Motivation Subject: Re: PC Motivation >>Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any >>role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the >>concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to >>occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment >>because the advantages run that way now. >Oh, I definitely concur here. And in regard to cheating: bad things may happen to bad PC's, but an evil >PC who is consistently backed up by a good roleplayer will and should be rewarded for his trouble. >Conversely, a decent and moral PC played by some cheating munchkin bastard will quickly find himself >caught in a custom-tailored version of Hell on Earth. Just my personal preference, but if I can't keep a PC from going Evil, I frag him (allow his capture or some such) and don't invite the guy back. I don't allow my games to go that way. Im an old fashion good-guy vs bad-guy kinda ref. I will allow some hard core misunderstood payback, or similar motivation, but not a PC going Rabid. Just my preference. If Im forced to play with a Rabid PC, then of one our characters won't be around for long that night. When I played "Dungeons and Dicerolling" I'd play a Palladin/Cavalier/or CG sumthin. I'd never play LG unless I got some binnie for it, like a +5 holy can of whoop ass. :-) I usually allow cheaters to cheat themselves, which usually evolves into their stopping on their own out of boredom or they don't come back to play. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:38:18 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation Peter wrote: > Heh, I always thought this would really piss non NATO characters off. My players > tend to ignore this and go with seniority (nationality aside, theres reasons why > that Russian army PC is a major Well, that would be a really accurate figure. However, in the particular situation that the character was brought into the party in, I guess she felt lucky to be alive. The CO of the unit was actually going to kill her (Our GM, appropriately I feel, did not let them know that she was a PC) and the rest of the unit was against it- so an agreement was reached. It did not take long for her to become well respected within the group though. Between speaking most of the area languages, her skill in LCG's, and having a lot of the "side skills" that most of the party didn't have she proved rather useful. Once she got to trust the party a little better, she showed them her "stash" of equipment as well, and that was a lot of stuff considering the EPA that she was given. (Alignment notes snipped as we are in full concurrence there :-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:06:16 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > > Heh, I always thought this would really piss non NATO characters off. My > players > > tend to ignore this and go with seniority (nationality aside, theres > reasons why > > that Russian army PC is a major > I always considered that a chuckable rule. US divisions (the 5th Mech. for > one) were assigned to German commanders. US soldiers didn't get > preferential command unless it was their vehicle or unit to begin with, and > vive versa. Pact guys could be incharge if anyone would follow them. > Usually after a few fire fights that was considered adequate for the players > usually. I would have to completely agree with this today... I think the rule was geared to kind of try to keep the players playing American characters. The concept that the unit was an element of the US 5th mech, it needed to be predominently US PC's I think. With world events adding in things like exchanges between NATO countries where say an American unit serves under British command and the fact that a NATO officer is respected at full rank by our soldiers, I'd have no problem ignoring that rule. However, I would still strongly question the party deciding to follow a PACT Officer without some real good justification. A couple of firefights would undoubtedly be grounds enough for that though. At least in my campaigns. > > Personally I think the alignment system is fine if its *just* a basis for > > a character. > IMO the alignment system or personality generation has no place in t2k. I > never used it, and ignored the players attempt to utilize it. Usually after > the first couple sessions that was put to rest also. You knew the PC after > the first few tight spots. > Loonz It's really interesting that I would have stood just about as strongly in the reverse direction when I first began responding to Snake Eyes' questions. However, now I can see the point on both sides. I think that whether alignment/personality have a place is very subjective to player and GM style. I don't think I would ever run a game without at least a simple personality profile, something to give me a little information about the PC's attitudes and motivation. I can see, also, that they aren't really necessary for a great game of T2k. I would be kind on interested in hearing what people on this list have done in these directions though... Do you use weaknesses/disadvantages/quirks? From What system? How did you implement these into T2k? Do you use personality profiles like motivations/attributes/descriptions/alignments? From what system? How did you implement these into T2k? What kind of awards/penalties did you apply for good/poor role-playing? Did it work out? Why/Not? Have any of you used concepts like Honor, fame, or reputation in your campaigns? How? Did it work well? My answers to the above questions are as follows... We've never really incorporated weaknesses and such. However, I did run a T2k game based off of the mechanics in the James Bond game (Victory Games) and it really sucked. Just didn't have the realistic "feel" of T2k although it was simpler. I have used a description style personality profile in the past. Just a few questions like how military oriented, authority oriented, team oriented the character is. Are they a loner or carouser in "off-time". Very general personality notes. Then the big question: Why did they enter the military and MOS that they chose. We never really needed to implement awards/penalties since the only people I really ever ran/played the game with (for more than one session) were really good RPers who didn't need such things to play a good character concept and have a lot of fun. I've considered putting in actual Honor, Fame, and Reputation but never have. One GM that I had was doing a bit where he made a list. It had something like: Marauders, NATO, PACT, Civillians going down a column. Whenever we encountered one of these bands and attacked it, he put a check by that force on his list. Then he'd roll a % whenever we ran into something and if the % rolled was less than or equal to the number of checks by that group, then they recognized us. Their reactions would be anything from extreme hostility to complete terror. It was a fun addition to the game as time went on because we began to really get a feel that we were making a difference in Europe. Our GM was very fond of bringing up the fact that there have been "legendary units" in every war in history and that this was his way of tracking us as potentials. I look forward to hearing answers from everybody. Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:15:05 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > Just my personal preference, but if I can't keep a PC from going Evil, I > frag him (allow his capture or some such) and don't invite the guy back. I > don't allow my games to go that way. Im an old fashion good-guy vs bad-guy > kinda ref. Well, most of my games run in the fashion presented above, however I think that there are a lot of RPing opportunities missed when you completely ignore the "evil side" of games. While playing the good guy is a lot more satisfying and just feels better overall, we've had some great bad guy games too. I wouldn't give those up any more than I would RPG's in general. > I will allow some hard core misunderstood payback, or similar motivation, > but not a PC going Rabid. Just my preference. If Im forced to play with a > Rabid PC, then of one our characters won't be around for long that night. Heh. Maybe some misunderstanding on my end. I agree with you about "going rabid" completely. It just gets ridiculous. I'm into fragging characters who do that myself. > When I played "Dungeons and Dicerolling" I'd play a Palladin/Cavalier/or CG > sumthin. I'd never play LG unless I got some binnie for it, like a +5 holy > can of whoop ass. :-) IMC's, I've really pushed to get players to try every class/race/alignment/kit combination because I see them all as beneficial. To me, LG is not absolute good like a lot of GM's try to push it to be- that is more of a NG. I mean a LG is bound by some sort of code, or set of laws. A NG doesn't care about laws and societal limitations, only what's good. On the ends of evil, a LE can generally be trusted within a party because his word is usually true and he has a sense of loyalty. One thing that I've often done is showed players of mine how a LE Knight can be just as loyal, honorable, and just as a LG Paladin while still being evil. > I usually allow cheaters to cheat themselves, which usually evolves into > their stopping on their own out of boredom or they don't come back to play. > Loonz Would you mind elaborating on this one? I'm kind of curious how you get a cheater to cheat himself. Thanks. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:07:05 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Vanquer wrote: > However, I would still strongly question the party deciding to follow a > PACT Officer without some real good justification. A couple of firefights > would undoubtedly be grounds enough for that though. At least in my > campaigns. I've always had it that the highest ranked NATO and Pact characters usually jointly lead the party (I always tend to have a captain or major from each side... for some reason thats how it works out). - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:04:38 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: PC Motivation Subject: Re: PC Motivation > > I usually allow cheaters to cheat themselves, which usually evolves into > > their stopping on their own out of boredom or they don't come back to > play. > > Loonz > > Would you mind elaborating on this one? I'm kind of curious how you get > a cheater to cheat himself. > They cheat themselves out of having as much fun as those who don't. I'm not going to know a guys cheating and allow him to rape all my campaign material, so he'll be at arms length and getting involved with an enth of the other plot lines. One instance the group came to a mine field, the cheater with CBE of something real low, 10 maybe 15, well he cheats his rolls to cross the MF. Well he made it (big surprise) and the others just sat their and stared at him. They knew I wouldn't allow all of them to cheat, so even if he marked it with a trail they still had the Hummer full of stuff. So he said "OK I'll come back" then I said I'd roll for his return, since I let him roll going. He was pissed. :-) One instance he was a SAW gunner, and he's picking off my NPC's left and right. The NPC's realize the SAW is tearing them up so the start to concentrate on him. The others managed to get clear of the crossfire a little farther, not completely cause ole' Sgt. York went to ground to avoid getting nicked. Using his driving skill he managed to keep his Hummer on the bridge as it collapsed, now he's on the otherside separated from the rest of the group. He made his scrounge roll to find the parts for the still, I rolled his Observation so he didn't see he was searching an impact crater. :-) Cheating is a problem when you have more than one, but one can be entertaining in of it's self. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:40:09 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Other electricty generating ideas for Twlight: 2000 - ----- Original Message ----- From: Damian Robinson To: Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 9:08 PM Subject: Re: Other electricty generating ideas for Twlight: 2000 > Well I can only speak about Australian vehicles really, but I'd guess > that its the same over most of the west. We Use 2 x 2 x 12v Bttys in > series for our radios, and the vehicles have their own 12v system > seperate, for ignition and the like. And as we use Land Rovers like > the UK, I suppose that they use a similar system these days. If you run your vehivles off of a 12v system, when you run your engine, do you have any alternators that charge up the 24v system too? > Not the ones I've seen.(But that leaves rather a lot of vehicles out > there!) Land Rovers and Unimogs all (IIRC) have a base 12v system, and > a 24v generator for the radios, if needed. Is the generator separate from the engine or do you have to run the engine to charge the 24v system? Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:37:13 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: electrical systems This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0130_01BEDEA8.5EDBFCE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Lee Williams=20 To: Twilight 2000 lists=20 Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 7:50 PM Subject: electrical systems When I used to be a driver for the British Army in the mid-eighties, = all smaller vehicles used 24 volts with one BIG battery. At least that's = how I remember it... Alpha Tango 32 Thanks for the info. I know my father told me when he was in the Army = from 1955 - 57, he remembers that some jeeps had a 6, 12, or 24 volt = ignition systems. I think the jeeps that were used just for shuttling = people around and such had the 6 volt systems but at that time, most = cars and trucks were going over to 12 volts. I think in many countries, = vehicle systems are positive ground where here in the U.S. and the rest = of the Americas, most are grounded on the negative side. Gotta watch = how you hook things up, cross the polarity, bye-bye radio. B-) Chuck DE KA3WRW - ------=_NextPart_000_0130_01BEDEA8.5EDBFCE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- From:=20 Lee=20 Williams To: Twilight 2000 lists = Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 = 7:50 PM Subject: electrical = systems When I used to be a driver for the = British Army=20 in the mid-eighties, all smaller vehicles used 24 volts with one = BIG=20 battery. At least that's how I remember it... Alpha Tango 32 Thanks for the info. I know = my father=20 told me when he was in the Army from 1955 - 57, he remembers that some = jeeps=20 had a 6, 12, or 24 volt ignition systems. I think the jeeps that = were=20 used just for shuttling people around and such had the 6 volt systems = but at=20 that time, most cars and trucks were going over to 12 volts. I = think in=20 many countries, vehicle systems are positive ground where here in the = U.S. and=20 the rest of the Americas, most are grounded on the negative = side. Gotta=20 watch how you hook things up, cross the polarity, bye-bye radio. = B-) Chuck DE KA3WRW - ------=_NextPart_000_0130_01BEDEA8.5EDBFCE0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:41:45 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Other electricty generating ideas for Twlight: 2000 > > Well I can only speak about Australian vehicles really, but I'd guess > > that its the same over most of the west. We Use 2 x 2 x 12v Bttys in > > series for our radios, and the vehicles have their own 12v system > > seperate, for ignition and the like. And as we use Land Rovers like > > the UK, I suppose that they use a similar system these days. > > If you run your vehivles off of a 12v system, when you run your engine, do > you have any alternators that charge up the 24v system too? The battery systems are charged via the engine yes. If your batteries start getting low you just start up and idle for a while and the batteries will be charging at the same time. As most vehicle mounted radios that sit in one location for large periods of time are in Battalion HQ's etc they can afford to do this. In the motorised units as they are on the move most of the time they don't usually have to worry so much about the charge levels of the radio batteries unless there has been excessive radio tx from them. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:14:14 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > > Would you mind elaborating on this one? I'm kind of curious how you > get > > a cheater to cheat himself. > They cheat themselves out of having as much fun as those who don't. I'm not > going to know a guys cheating and allow him to rape all my campaign > material, so he'll be at arms length and getting involved with an enth of > the other plot lines. (snipped) > Cheating is a problem when you have more than one, but one can be > entertaining in of it's self. > Loonz ROFLMAO! That was really entertaining. I'll have to try out some of those. You gave me some real good ideas though. Thanks. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:12:32 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Dwight Looney wrote: > Cheating is a problem when you have more than one, but one can be > entertaining in of it's self. Hehehe... definately... In the AD&D campaign I run the party pool and I continually fudge on healing potions. When I started the controlling the pool we all contributed extra potions. This made 4 potions. We picked 2 more up. Since then we have used about 25 although in the pool it says we have 9. Perhaps if I complained that we aren't getting nearly enough potions to survive what the DM throws at us more would pop up in our travels. But when you have the whole eight man party in on it and supporting it its hard to catch, and if it ain't broke don't fix it heh :) We have two players who are sticklers for following the rules and they have turned me in for cheating just to keep up appearances... on other less essential items to divert attention away from the potions :) Of course in my campaigns after each session I check to make sure the pool is legit (otherwise the player can forget about the benefits we give the map maker and the person running the pool). Recently the DM nearly caught me as we got trounced in a fight and somehow eight potions got passed around but he forgot about it when, thankfully, one of the players broke out a bag of chips. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:48:47 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: PC Motivation - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Vieth To: Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: PC Motivation > I personally dislike the idea of advantages and disadvantages. In Top Secret > some of my players actually found really good uses for their disadvantages. A > disadvantage should hamper you not be as good as an advantage :) Yeah, you can get bogged down, especially if you start codifying every disadvantage/advantage to the point where you have a 10 page manual. Some disadvantages like for example, in GURPS, the "odious personal habits" (say nose picking) cannot really be played for an advantage whereas maybe a "second class citizen" disadvantage CAN be turned around into an advantage from time to time. Maybe if the PC's are in a society where they considered women to be weak and "second class citizens" perhaps a female PC could play the "weak little girl routine" to somehow convice some NPC's that could help her party out. Or if the there is a PC that is with the group is a member of an "outcast group" in our society but if we are in his/her world, that disadvantage could be turned to an advantage for the time being. It's all in the roleplaying, sort of like another obstacle for the PC/NPC to conquer along with the elements and situation that Twilight: 2000 can dish out. Sometimes advantages could be turned into disadvantages where for example if a character is wealthy, he might not be seen to favorable in a place where most people are poor and/or starving which adds to the roleplaying challenge again. Just some thoughts. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:39:09 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: PC Motivation - ----- Original Message ----- From: Vanquer To: Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:01 AM Subject: Re: PC Motivation > The alignment system will work in any campaign as long as the GM has a > thorough understanding of the system and is willing/able to determine > without a shadow of a doubt what is "good' and "evil" within the concept of > his campaign. - --- snip --- > While I've never really needed the alignment system in any game except > D&D/AD&D, I'm a major proponent for it. I believe that a well-developed > personality goes waaay beyond the alignment, but alignment is a good place > to start. Also, I've definitely found it of much greater use than the "cards > system" for developing an NPC's personality. Hello Jesse, I guess the alignment system isn't quite bad when you use it as a general benchmark of how the character sees things. I remember having a discussion which a co-worker who plays AD&D about people who in real life or in stories that would make examples of various alignments. Lawful Good: Batman (from the 1966 - 68 ABC TV series) Neutral Good: Spiderman in the Marvel Comics Chaotic Good: James Bond, Batman as portrayed from the recent movies, Magneto from Marvel Comics) Chaotic Neutral: I personally see Bill Clinton in this one maybe the old Mr. Scrooge, (i.e. People that are out for themselves, don't care if the action is good or evil, as long as it benefits them) Chaotic Evil: Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, etc. Neutral Evil: Satan (who else?) Lawful Evil: Al Capone? (some says he actually had concern for the poor so I'm not sure) Lawful Neutral: Inspector Girard from the 1962- 67 ABC TV series, "The Fugitive." (i.e. people who believe the law is the law no matter if the laws are evil or good, it must be upheld) Neutral: I can't think of any, that would be tough to fill. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:03:43 -0500 From: Steve Chymy Subject: Re: PC Motivation Vanquer wrote: > > Just my personal preference, but if I can't keep a PC from going Evil, I > > frag him (allow his capture or some such) and don't invite the guy back. > I > > don't allow my games to go that way. Im an old fashion good-guy vs > bad-guy > > kinda ref. > > Well, most of my games run in the fashion presented above, however I > think that there are a lot of RPing opportunities missed when you completely > ignore the "evil side" of games. While playing the good guy is a lot more > satisfying and just feels better overall, we've had some great bad guy games > too. I wouldn't give those up any more than I would RPG's in general. > > > I will allow some hard core misunderstood payback, or similar motivation, > > but not a PC going Rabid. Just my preference. If Im forced to play with > a > > Rabid PC, then of one our characters won't be around for long that night. > > Heh. Maybe some misunderstanding on my end. I agree with you about > "going rabid" completely. It just gets ridiculous. I'm into fragging > characters who do that myself. > > Snip<> > > Thanks. > > Jesse. > vanquer@email.msn.com > > I generally have a group five to six PC's, but one of the players just got on my nerves, so finally after a number sessions I said, “what is your problem”, he wanted to play the “Evil” character, we have done this before as a group. However, we have never just had one player go off and develop a truly sadistic character that was out to "get" the group. The adventure turned out quite well, although two of the regular players were captured, and continue to suffer flash backs and nightmares to this day. The "Evil" player even took part in preparing his NPC's within reason and various maps, structures and ambiance. I have not played this scenario in many years, but I have a new campaign running for the last 8 months and I am considering it again, too bad the original player no longer lives in this city. I guess I could advertise for a new player. ***Are you sadistic with homicidal tendencies??? – We have got the campaign for you. *** ***Although with my luck some nut would show up at my place and I would have to explain I need an Evil character not an Evil person. –This could be difficult to explain to a homicidal nut. - --Disclaimer— The above paragraph is intended in jest, and is not meant to provoke any evil nuts. Has anyone else attempted bad player versus good player campaigns and how did it work for you. Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 01:12:40 -0700 From: Ron Hale Subject: Re: PC Motivation Snake Eyes wrote: How do you all as players and referees account for your PC's personalities and/or psychological profile? What I do is simply ask the players to write down things that the character likes/dis-likes and what they would do to get/avoid these things. Some of the lists have been cool, some dumb. Some of the things that have appeared are; Loves nice hot shower-Would trade last full mag of ammo for a shower. Hates CivGov or MilGov-Won't work for whichever. Loves the Beef Stew MRE-Would trade a weeks MREs for the meal. Loves some type of canned fruit/veg/drink-Would trade anything but ammo for a can. This I have found works well, and has made for some interesting roleplaying. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #62 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000".