twilight2000-digest Tuesday, August 10 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 064 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: PC Motivation caseless ammo Re: caseless ammo Re: PC Unit Size & NPC's Burn out Re: Burn out Re: PC Unit Size & NPC's Re: Burn out Testing Re: Testing Re: Another Question (Long) Re: PC Motivation Re: Burn out Re: Another Question (Long) Re: Another Question (Long) melee and hand to hand combat Re: Burn out Re: caseless ammo Re: caseless ammo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:44:54 -0700 From: Corey Michael Wells Subject: Re: PC Motivation This is an interesting subject. Honestly, as a GM, I haven't implemented it much, but have thought about it. My early exposure to Twilight was as a player, and I still consider that time one of the best role-playing experiences. In that campaign, there wasn't any documented psyche, but most of us played our particular character a certain way... One player was fairly cautious, but not a coward, you could usually count on him to back you up when the heat was on (incidentally, he was the only character to survive from early in the campaign, even before I joined the group, to the end of our European adventures. I think I went through the most characters...) Another would play fairly smart, but occasionally snap during fights and go kinda berserk. In the 2nd Edition book, I think there's a sample NPC like that. Another player would make stupid mistakes, but play arrogantly. All of our character personalities were fairly obvious and somewhat easy to define, though it was never spoken of. As such, I think the GM ran the campaign accordingly, playing off of our character personas. Anyhow, as far as creating something before hand, I think the decision to do so will have to be left to the GM at the end. Depends on how and if he wants to deal with it. As far as the actual creation of personalities, that should mostly be left to the characters, maybe kinda like the GM do a question and answer session to help define the traits. As far as punishment and rewards are concerned, that could actually be a little more touchy. One way as far as rewards are concerned, and I think it may be mentioned in the rules somewhere, is through experience points. You can award and extra point or two when a player plays within character. Heck, back in a couple D&D games I played, the DM said (not in my presence, but during a meeting I couldn't make) that I was playing particularly well, and in good character form. Just verbal kudos like that can be nice, especially if the player is trying to be in it, because he then knows that his efforts are being noticed. Punishment is harder, but as a GM, you can just disallow the player from performing an action if it's blatantly out of character. Actions within gray areas will be more difficult to rule on, but a sample of blatant actions would be perhaps a nun going on an unprovoked shooting rampage. The unprovoked part is important, because of the setting, times are very bad, and even a nun or priest can be pushed over the edge and snap. Of course, when that happens, you have to make the player play his character that way from then on. Anyhow, I hope this gives some meat for thought. I really like this idea, it's something I've been thinking of. I'm personally working on a new engine, and one of the first settings/campaigns for it. As part of the plot line, I need a Sgt. Rock type of character, but want it played by one of the players instead of making him an NPC. The player I'm thinking of giving the character to will be somewhat cooperative, so if I outline my idea of the personality for the character, he'll probably follow it fairly well. As a counter-offer, I'm thinking of allowing two characters per player, so he can have one to run his own way. Also, I expect high character attrition early on, so this would also give the players an immediate backup character. This brings up another question: what's the thoughts of allowing multiple characters to a player? - --Cor Snake Eyes wrote: > How do you all as players and referees account for your PC's personalities > and/or psychological profile? Or do you bother? Twilight & Merc tend to > be high attrition games, so I can see where it might not matter to > some. But for those who do care, how do you implement it? > > 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: > > 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. > > While I don't necessarily love the idea of pinning PC's down in terms of > what motivates them, I have found that knowing that information up front > allows the referee to tailor specific encounters and situations to play off > the PC's various documented "Edges & Flaws" (for lack of a better > terminology). It's been my experience that given the chance, most players > will bend their morals to whatever suits them best at any given time, and > the PC's thus become a pack of craven opportunistic bastards. > > Twilight has no analog to the Shadowrun concept of Karma, so if you were to > require players to document a psychological profile for each PC, how would > you go about "punishing" them for veering from that code, or "reward" them > for sticking to it even when disadvantageous to the PC? > > ~ Snake Eyes > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 03:20:49 -0400 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: caseless ammo i have heard of caseless ammo before. like in aliens the movie though you can see caseings. but how is caseless meant to work? aaron ~In darkness lies often are the truth.~ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 00:33:53 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: caseless ammo At 03:20 AM 8/8/99 -0400, Cell-66 wrote: > i have heard of caseless ammo before. like in aliens the movie >though you can see caseings. but how is caseless meant to work? Check out: http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/caseless.htm for a much better description than I could ever hope to offer. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 00:48:48 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: PC Unit Size & NPC's At 10:44 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Cor wrote: >Anyhow, you may find that an ideal group is 4 to 6 players, and that that may >also be the ideal amount of major characters. So I would only supplement if >it's less that 4 players. With 4, I would add in either/both 1 major NPC or >have one player with two characters (again, have it be the lead if you're >planning having a large unit later on.) At 5 players, I would probably leave >it, or just make a major NPC. I concur that 4-6 is the ideal # of players. I've run with less and with more, but those numbers seem about right. I prefer rounding out the team with NPC's if they need various specialized skills or a mess of redshirts for a particular task. I've tried the multiple characters per player option a few times, and I didn't care for it as a player or as a Ref. Loonz brings up a good point about having a reserve PC waiting on deck in case the main character bites it. I guess I never had to implement that as a policy, because all my players had always created plenty of their own backups and alternate concepts anyway. I'd still only allow one in play at any given time. My opinion is that if one PC is going to end up as cannon fodder anyway, it might as well be the Ref running it. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:24:22 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Burn out I have one major problem as I see it with GMing; no matter how well the campaign starts, later on the settings and situations always seem to be the same old thing to me and I find it harder and harder to GM. Theres only so many ways you can describe the road the PCs are going down, especially when the roads usually look the same. It gets harder to visualize things at that point to me. Then too I always feel my creativity is restrained by t2k being set in the real world (what? those kinds of plants don't grow in France! or something along those lines). Preparing beforehand stops this but, as was stressed so much a few days ago, you have to let the players wander around a bit and so planning ahead doesn't always work. Any tips from other GMs? - -- ([-[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: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 02:21:06 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Burn out At 01:24 AM 8/8/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >I have one major problem as I see it with GMing; no matter how well the >campaign starts, later on the settings and situations always seem to be >the same old thing to me and I find it harder and harder to GM. Theres >only so many ways you can describe the road the PCs are going down, >especially when the roads usually look the same. It gets harder to >visualize things at that point to me. Then too I always feel my >creativity is restrained by t2k being set in the real world (what? those >kinds of plants don't grow in France! or something along those lines). >Preparing beforehand stops this but, as was stressed so much a few days >ago, you have to let the players wander around a bit and so planning >ahead doesn't always work. Any tips from other GMs? Please allow a rambling roundabout solution to your query. We've apparently got two divergent camps on this topic. I'll call it "structure vs. free-form" until somebody comes up with something catchier. Elements of both are necessary for a healthy campaign. There should be an overall plot, but that plot can be deviated from. There should be enough variety to prevent the perception of linearity which leads to boredom, stagnation and/or that "video game" feeling, and there should be enough structure to avoid the appearance of a game of TOON or Paranoia. As far as creativity is concerned, I make a concerted effort to never let the real world get in the way of my gaming. Even though Twilight is set in the "real world" the folks I play with generally agree that the Referee is the final arbiter and interpreter of that world. I don't care if one of the players has actually been there, done that or otherwise lived the adventure and claims it was nothing like that. I don't care about what grows where, what animals are indigenous to an area, or what the climate is really like on a day-to-day basis. If I say that it's 98 degrees in January, or that they see an armadillo and tumbleweeds crossing an eight-lane superhighway outside Krakow, or that those swamps in eastern Poland are just like the Louisiana bayous, then that's how it is. You've got to draw a line somewhere, and if your players can't suspend disbelief when you are wrong or concede to the need for a referee's final authority, they probably shouldn't be playing RPG's. Having said that, along with my previously stated position on plot guidance, I always find it handy to keep a bunch of pre-generated (and more or less random) encounters on tap just for the sake of variety. I just think of movie scenes that I'd like to re-enact, or I imagine some of the crazy people I've dealt with in real life as NPC's. When the time comes to flesh them out and spring them on the players I don't worry too much about adhering to realism or even avoiding overt outlandishness. Think on the fly. Make it up. They won't know any better, and if they complain about it you can always nuke them from orbit. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 12:23:47 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: PC Unit Size & NPC's Subject: Re: PC Unit Size & NPC's > At 10:44 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Cor wrote: > Loonz brings up a good point about having a reserve PC waiting on deck in > case the main character bites it. I guess I never had to implement that as > a policy, because all my players had always created plenty of their own > backups and alternate concepts anyway. I'd still only allow one in play at > any given time. My opinion is that if one PC is going to end up as cannon > fodder anyway, it might as well be the Ref running it. I only needed it like that because of the nature of one of my groups. Out of 7 total players 3 would cheat constantly, a shame because two of them were good without it and the other was just plain funny. So I had no qualms at all of snuffing one of those PC's if his absence wouldn't hurt the others. Can't strip away a guys cover fire, especially if it rolls ones regularly. :-) I also use read shirts to tease the players. If they pick-up a bunch of stragglers or rescue POW's they think a big fight is coming. Once I gave them 11 stragglers, just so they would HAVE TO steal from the corn field of the farmer in the Nightmares scenario with the ants. :-) 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: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 12:38:30 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Burn out Subject: Burn out > I have one major problem as I see it with GMing; no matter how well the > campaign starts, later on the settings and situations always seem to be > the same old thing to me and I find it harder and harder to GM. Theres > only so many ways you can describe the road the PCs are going down, > especially when the roads usually look the same. It gets harder to > visualize things at that point to me. Then too I always feel my > creativity is restrained by t2k being set in the real world (what? those > kinds of plants don't grow in France! or something along those lines). > Preparing beforehand stops this but, as was stressed so much a few days > ago, you have to let the players wander around a bit and so planning > ahead doesn't always work. Any tips from other GMs? I hate to say one of my aids came from the back of the D&D dungeon masters guide. That big bunch of tables with all the adjectives. I used it for brain candy so I could keep using colorful or dark descriptions. If PC's relate to me "that plant doesn't grow in France then" then the NPC would say "yeah your right maybe we ain't France" actually the missed ID'd the plant or maybe for few hours their not. >:-D When all the roads start looking the same, that's a good time to take their map. :-) As for the wandering players, I'm there to have fun also. If the players made a decision and I prepared useful data for them and then they change directions erratically. Then neither of us is going to have much fun running through generic towns. That's when I use large explosions, forest fires, disease and search parties (feral dogs are great also) to keep them justifiably moving in a direction they decided and I have some content prepared for them. 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: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 23:18:10 -0700 From: Ron Hale Subject: Testing This is just a test to see which addresses are still good from my book. No one needs to respond, just ignore this. Thanks 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 00:32:44 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Testing Ron Hale wrote: > This is just a test to see which addresses are still good from my book. > No one needs to respond, just ignore this. > Thanks > TTFN > Ron Hale Don't ask why but I just realized while sifting through old t2k, now that I am about to lose the gaming group I've had for years I"m gonna have a hell of a lot of premade NPCs from their characters hehehehe... - -- ([-[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: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:35:11 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: Another Question (Long) Hey Loonz, Thanks for the feedback... > Wow... > Well since I have a mando rule of having a stand-by PC ready to go this > wouldn't have dented by gaming time very much. So I don't think I would > have interceded. Our GM didn't require a "stand-by" PC, however most of us were fairly new to the game, or really enjoyed creating characters so we generally had back-up characters and didn't screw up the game too much, there really wasn't much EQ left after the explosion though :-( > If the SEAL Moran was ruining it for everyone else and they were justified, > then it may not have gotten that far, but if they were willing to put up > with it, and he did have followers, I wouldn't have bothered... Well, this may sound bad but the only games that I've ever been in where a single person ruined the game for the majority was games where the GM wasn't very good, or didn't care about anything except his own power trip. On my end, as GM, I never intercede on the players' parts, although I was looking to see how other GM's would have handled that situation. Like how many would throw in an encounter at that point? Fudge rolls, etc. > I would have started the stand-by characters 2 blocks down in their hovel > they set up in an old firehouse when they here a big explosion, Murphy the > cannon cocker straggler (NPC) they picked up a month ago says lets go look. > Then your newbies atleast get early dibs on the debris field. > Cheers > Loonz Lol. Well, I had never thought about starting the "new unit" anywhere near the old one, and have generally avoided doing so- but I can imagine the interest that would come of the new characters trying to figure out what happened in a situation like our campaign... Thanks for the feedback. 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: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:12:13 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation (Snip) > character, he'll probably follow it fairly well. As a counter-offer, I'm > thinking of allowing two characters per player, so he can have one to run his > own way. Also, I expect high character attrition early on, so this would also > give the players an immediate backup character. This brings up another > question: what's the thoughts of allowing multiple characters to a player? > --Cor I'd say that if it's enjoyable and your players can handle it- go for it. 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: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:17:13 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: Burn out Hey All, Thought I'd give my comments on both the original, and the commentator's comments :-) Anyway here goes... >>Peter Vieth >Dwight Loonz > > I have one major problem as I see it with GMing; no matter how well the > > campaign starts, later on the settings and situations always seem to be > > the same old thing to me and I find it harder and harder to GM. Theres > > only so many ways you can describe the road the PCs are going down, > > especially when the roads usually look the same. It gets harder to > > visualize things at that point to me. Then too I always feel my > > creativity is restrained by t2k being set in the real world (what? those > > kinds of plants don't grow in France! or something along those lines). > > Preparing beforehand stops this but, as was stressed so much a few days > > ago, you have to let the players wander around a bit and so planning > > ahead doesn't always work. Any tips from other GMs? Well, I'm getting the feel (and I could be very wrong) that you keep the players as a sort of roving merc band so to speak. One of the things that I've noticed is that after getting out of the Kalisz situation things begin to change. For those who play 2nd ed or later- my apologies but I hold with the 1st ed. campaign setting running loosely off of the modules and timelines from there. First off, there are those who do not choose to rendezvous for the withdrawal from Poland. In those campaigns, the Polish tend to be so disordered by the Chaos of war that you've got several factions going several different directions. These players tend to set up their own bases of operations in my campaigns and generally try to work at rebuilding the region that they operate within. IMC, this has been anything from a building, to an area of like 10 klicks across. Anyway, with this type of situation it's time to look into ways to work out the cantonment, protect their interests and the populaces that look to the characters for protection. Also, those nasty Marauders are now the attackers with the PC's defending and the game takes on a new twist. Those who withdraw from Poland tend to join up with CivGov, MilGov, or run as freelance Mercs in my campaigns. Any way it goes, they usually end up on several adventures against New America. Some of these characters get shipped off to the MEFF where they take part in much more organized Military Operations and are usually assigned to a larger Unit with a sort of "base" of their own within. The New America campaigns have seldom gone stagnant as there's a LOT involved with those campaigns as long as you can continue coming up with new goals and motivations for the "cells" while conforming to NA's general goals. These campaigns, if long-running, have seemed to run more towards the Sci-fi than T2k campaign as the PC's re-develop older technology, then work on things more advanced. The MEFF campaigns tend to be much smaller-scale guerilla type combat for the PC's. I usually establish a "mission structure" for them with primary and sec. objectives. On the base, they are one of several SF teams assigned there and there are a LOT of RPing opportunities as they associate with the various "friendly" NPC's on base. I tend to run the MEFF as a sort of "Saigon" of WWIII with lots of luxury, intrigue, and interesting "home front' encounters. I don't know if any of these basic scenario/campaign ideas helps out, but it sounds to me like you tend to ignore the mid to long-term goals of the campaign and stick to the short (combat) term... I apologize if I'm wrong here. Now, as far as what plants grow in Siberia, or what animals are found in France (What? Guinea pigs can't survive in Alaska? Why not? Never mind- these one's do) It is my opinion that CBR affects on plants and animals, the amount of travel that takes plants and animals from one area to another, and other environmental factors- not to ignore "Mad Scientist" creations, cross-breedings, and such there's no reason that you couldn't have a Dutch Elm in Antarctica, or a grizzly in the Sahara. Just make up a reason that they're there if confronted about it by a player. Who knows, it could create a good base storyline for you to use for further adventures. More often than not, when I've had GMing problems in T2k, I've found that it was because the PC's had too much equipment- or too good of combinations of EQ developed/designed. Direct adventures designed to destroy/steal equipment seemed somewhat "hokey" and I couldn't bring myself to do those. The occassional PC's have run out of goals and aren't coming up with any is another of those problems. In these cases, I've had a few campaigns die and I'm still not sure how to correct these problems. However, I must be doing something right because these events are becoming fewer and farther between. > I hate to say one of my aids came from the back of the D&D dungeon masters > guide. That big bunch of tables with all the adjectives. I used it for > brain candy so I could keep using colorful or dark descriptions. I don't know why you "hate to say" it, but I've found that most of the Appendixes and Wilderness Survival Guide from AD&D have been GREAT aids to a lot of my campaigns. I will use anything from any system that will help improve my own system, and I guess I've got some sort of biasedness against "Puritanical Loyalty" to one system or another. From my experience in RPG's, I've seen very little in the way of "Loyalty" to the fans from game systems and thus have very little of the same towards them. Hope that didn't come across as too rude, but it's just my opinions. (Snipped Dwight's comment on plants as I dealt with it above) > When all the roads start looking the same, that's a good time to take their > map. :-) I think Peter meant more that they start all looking the same in his mind, rather than to the players. One thing here that you could do is use the "de ja vu" against the players. "You're walking along another pot-holed dirty disrepaired road. It's just like a million others that you've travelled along in this area..." With "familiarity" players and characters tend to relax a bit- those are good times to introduce an odd building, odd person, or just spring an outright ambush, maybe even an odd piece of equipment. > As for the wandering players, I'm there to have fun also. If the players > made a decision and I prepared useful data for them and then they change > directions erratically. Then neither of us is going to have much fun > running through generic towns. That's when I use large explosions, forest > fires, disease and search parties (feral dogs are great also) to keep them > justifiably moving in a direction they decided and I have some content > prepared for them. > Loonz I don't agree or condone such action, however that argument has already been hashed over recently. At least it sounds like you "guide them" in a reasonable manner rather than being outright arbitrary about it :-) Peter, as far as your "burn-out" goes, sometimes you'll get tired of the same old thing. Whether this is role-playing in general, or the same campaign. I would suggest the occassional "breaker game" as we call them. When I, or my players, seem fresh out of ideas or motivation towards a camp. we've often done something like Car-wars, Battletech, Robotech, or any number of strategy games to allow some good action while skipping role-playing. Something in contrast to what we've been doing. When it's RPing burn-out on a player's part, they usually tend to find other things to do and "can't" show up for games for awhile, then return back to normal. When it's GM's burn-out that doesn't tend to work as well as you tend to have a commitment to the group. We've handled this in the past by having a "back-up" GM generating his own campaign. When the primary GM burns out, the back-up runs his campaign. At one time we were having so much fun with this that we had 5 different campaigns in as many game systems running at the same time and it got difficult agreeing on which to play "this weekend". Finally, there have been times when we just played cards, or rented a movie. Movies work really well as "research material" to give players ideas and thoughts about the campaign. For example, when we were really striving for teamwork (right after the game where we wiped out our own party :-) we watched a bunch of movies like The Final Option, and others that showed "team efforts" in combat. When we got back to the game, there were a LOT of fresh ideas on all parts- players and GM. Hope this helps. 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: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:56:43 From: "Timothy Moerke" Subject: Re: Another Question (Long) I have had players run as many as six (no kidding) PC's at once. Of course, not many people can do this. I myself can do four or so before it becomes too difficult. T.P>M. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:04:26 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Another Question (Long) - -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Moerke To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Tuesday, 10 August 1999 3:53 Subject: Re: Another Question (Long) >I have had players run as many as six (no kidding) PC's at once. Of course, >not many people can do this. I myself can do four or so before it becomes >too difficult. > I find it too hard to keep the PC's personalities separate if I run more than one at a time, but I like to have supporting NPC's who generally develop their own if run long enough and I can take over these guy's if something untoward happens. Cheers, Jim. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:46:42 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: melee and hand to hand combat I've never been at all satisfied with t2k's treatment of melee and hand to hand combat. I haven't thought about it much but the system I use is basically the character who has won initiative declares what he wants to do. The character being attacked has a chance to parry or dodge, etc. The number of times this can be done is based on a crude strength + agility action point like system. I'm not satisfied with this either. I wonder what do others here use? - -- ([-[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: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:46:13 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Burn out Vanquer wrote: > > As for the wandering players, I'm there to have fun also. If the players > > made a decision and I prepared useful data for them and then they change > > directions erratically. Then neither of us is going to have much fun > > running through generic towns. That's when I use large explosions, forest > > fires, disease and search parties (feral dogs are great also) to keep them > > justifiably moving in a direction they decided and I have some content > > prepared for them. > > Loonz > > Peter, as far as your "burn-out" goes, sometimes you'll get tired of the > same > old thing. Whether this is role-playing in general, or the same campaign. I > would > suggest the occassional "breaker game" as we call them. > When I, or my players, seem fresh out of ideas or motivation towards a > camp. > we've often done something like Car-wars, Battletech, Robotech, or any > number > of strategy games to allow some good action while skipping role-playing. > Something in contrast to what we've been doing. When it's RPing burn-out > on > a player's part, they usually tend to find other things to do and "can't" > show up for > games for awhile, then return back to normal. > When it's GM's burn-out that doesn't tend to work as well as you tend to > have > a commitment to the group. We've handled this in the past by having a > "back-up" > GM generating his own campaign. Yup, last time I took a pause of about two or three months and let my friend GM his campaign full time. He's never out of ideas. BTW, perhaps I should have elaborated more on the this plant doesn't grow here example. I used to GM an AD&D campaign, but I found myself being outdone by my friend who also GMed one. The thing was he knew a lot about the Forgotten Realms and the atmosphere, etc, whereas I found a t2k like setting much more familiar (although I didn't know about t2k then heh). Of course, had we both been GMing T2k the roles would have been reversed. Its just that the world is a very big and complex place and sometimes the characters wander off some place where you don't know much about and don't have a feel for (that's a good point to tell them its a radioactive cinder I suppose). And I'm just not comfortable when that happens. Anyway there is a problem when the trouble is not just entertaining the players but yourself. I thought I had solved the problems I had in the past with the last campaign but I still put that one on hold to do something different and play Merc. Thinking about it now, that break from GMing was just a chance to roleplay without bothering with anything else. I realize that I should probably try to have as much fun playing NPCs as I do playing a PC as part of another GMs campaign-- something that I didn't have a chance to do this time because I had enough players for a full party without NPCs (in the past I have put most of my effort into roleplaying the party's NPCs...). Then again of course there are the times when everyone is burnt out. Anyway I'm hoping to rewrite the rules to fix what was problematic in the past year before I continue a campaign. I'll post this when its done. Also I'm totally dissatisfied with WinRPA's IRC client. For one thing it doesn't work on DALNet. So I'm gonna have it work with mIRC and hopefully finish this damn thing soon. Maybe I wont try to have it slice, dice, and wash your dog in addition to rolling dice. Oh shucks its gotta control winamp too tho :) - -- ([-[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: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:23:59 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: caseless ammo >At 03:20 AM 8/8/99 -0400, Cell-66 wrote: > >> i have heard of caseless ammo before. like in aliens the movie >>though you can see caseings. but how is caseless meant to work? > In general, rather than placing the bullet, propellant and primer in a (brass) casing, the propellant and primer are formed into a cake around the bullet. The advantages are: (1) Much lower buller weight: the casing accounts for 1/2 to 1/3 the weight of a full round. (2) No ejection port: Spent casings do not need to be ejected, so no ejection port is required. One less place for dirt to enter the gun. The Disadvantages: (1) Generally kicks up the price of the weapon (not ammo) significantly. (2) There are no empty casing to be reloaded (only important in certain settings, like T3K ...). A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.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: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:05:27 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: caseless ammo At 10:23 AM 8/10/99 PDT, Brandon Cope wrote: >>At 03:20 AM 8/8/99 -0400, Cell-66 wrote: >> >>> i have heard of caseless ammo before. like in aliens the movie >>>though you can see caseings. but how is caseless meant to work? >> > >In general, rather than placing the bullet, propellant and primer in a >(brass) casing, the propellant and primer are formed into a cake around the >bullet. > >The advantages are: > >(1) Much lower buller weight: the casing accounts for 1/2 to 1/3 the weight >of a full round. > Isn't the compactness of the round also a factor? That is, not only does it weigh less, but without the casing (and especially without the flange around the base of an ordinary round) it doesn't take up as much space. [Snip.] >(2) There are no empty casing to be reloaded (only important in certain >settings, like T3K ...). > The real problem here, I guess, would be that the techniques for creating a caseless round (and holding all that powder together) are much more demanding than the comparatively simpler process of packing powder into a brass casing? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** 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 #64 ************************************ 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".