Markdoc

Re: Alternate Swords, cuz Katanas are overdone! Actually, late medieval/early renaissance rapiers are generally much heavier than the modern versions we see more frequently, and a slashing cut with the tip (the top few inches of the blade) was quite capable of cutting throats, removing fingers or dealing disabling and potentially lethal cuts to groin, arm or thigh - as long as your target wasn't armoured. The first book on rapier technique- Opera Nova, written in 1536 by Achillio Marozzo de Bologne, devotes most of its techniques to cutting strokes. Rapiers of the 16th century still had blades that were 1 - 1 1/2 inches wide at the base, and look like lighter versions of the longsword with a slightly elaborated hilt. This *was* a battle weapon and was widely used together with a buckler by spanish soldiers. It wasn't until Saviolo (late 17th century) that the point becomes the preferred method of attack and it's only after this that the rapier gets both a lighter (and shorter) blade - and only after this it becomes basically a dress/duel weapon, before evolving into the smallsword, which essentially replaced the rapier in the 18th century. Some misconceptions here - the katana is designed for a drawing cut, while European long/broad swords were designed for a percussion cut, but they are both cutting weapons. It's also a common misconception that you can cut metal armour with a sword. You can't, generally. European swords were designed to cut exposed flesh and stab at unarmoured spots. Anyone who just hacks at armour with their sword is as likely to simply break it as to make a hole in the armour. You can see a variety of tests with reconstructed weapons here http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm and the results are the same as those obtained by the Medieval Heritage society in Britain. It is true that European swords were more robust than the katana, and would stand up to more abuse on armor (even you can't cut into a helmet, a solid whack upside the head is going to affect the guy wearing it...). However, katanas were also designed to be used against armoured foes - and NO, japanese armour is not made of lacquered bamboo - it's made of steel, and if anything is heavier and clumsier than the European kind. Contemporary japanese writings make it plain that breaking a katana on an enemies armour was not a rare event. Hence the increasing popularity of polearms, both en masse and as individual weapons. cheers, Mark

Re: New Bujold Novel

Re: Business model question Short version. Yes, there are companies that make a living totally off patents. There are three kinds: 1) the bad kind. They trawl the patent databases and technological literature looking for things that could be patented but aren't and patent them, then try to extort money from people using that tech. If it goes to court, they usually lose, but they make a living since it's often cheaper to just buy them off rather than take the risk of losing in court. A similar and more successful approach is to find patents that aren't being enforced, or which have a broader use than intended, buy the rights cheaply and then extort money as per the first approach. This is not just software patents - the same approach is common in biotech and medicine. These companies are generally referred to as bottom-feeders or bastards, although they usually bill themselves as tech companies. You could use them at some point as adversaries 2) The good kind. There are small tech companies that never actually develop and sell products: they do basic, cutting-edge research and then sell the ideas at an early stage to a larger company that will try to turn them into patentable products: I used to work for such a place. Sounds like it'd fit your group. These are called tech.s or sometimes incubators, if you have a bunch of similar companies working together. 3) The meh kind. There are companies who make their living just minding other people's patents - they will file patents, do due diligence, manage the income from patents, let you know about possible infringement by other people, fight in court if necessary, etc. This is usually the specialised arm of a big legal company, but there are some tech management companies that just do this. cheers, Mark

Re: Skill enhancers:Suggestions I wouldn't go for the fighter suggestion, but I'd be OK with the first two. For years I have been using what I call "Professional skill enhancers". These are simply extensions of the "scientist" skill enhancer. So someone who wanted to be a really good cop could purchase Skill Enhancer: "Police officer" and get a 1 point break on all skills common to police training. This specifically excludes combat, but would cover bureacratics, legal aspects, crime scene forensics, etc. It wouldn't cover (as noted) combat, piloting, or even combat driving, since professional skill enhancers are intended to cover those aspects which *most* people with that job description would be expected to have some knowledge in, not skills they *could* have some knowledge in. As a rule of thumb, if the player has to make up some comlpicated explanation as to why the character should have the skill, then it's not covered by the skill enhancer and they can buy it normally. It's worked well for us, encouraging people to take background skills they otherwise might not have and has not been unbalancing. cheers, Mark

Re: I am looking for magical items. You can also go here: http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Grimoire/the_ultimate_grimoire.htm for a list of fairly standard magical gear. Cheers, mark

Re: Darkness and Evil -- Examing the Metaphor Or, as in Troll mythology from Runequest, fire and death. If you are looking for reading to help on this topic, I'd start here: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~gerakkag/rq.html Forget Jung, the poor old philospher manqué. He has a lot to say, much of it fun to read, but in the end, almost none of it informative for someone interested in story. Trust me - I read a lot of Jung back in my "Salterton" days. Campbell covered everything he said in more detail and with less digression. That's not to say "Don't read Jung" - he writes well and raises interesting issues. Just don't expect enlightment on this particular topic. cheers, Mark

Re: Weapon Designs -- opinions wanted You got that right. In retrospect Bungie was lucky to survive to make another game... cheers, Mark

Re: And off we go! OK, I have been lax in updating this, although play has proceeded. To fill in, until I get around to writing some more, here are the dramatis personae Aquila Belllona Castor Gen Khatz Khelsen and - of course - Lamoniak cheers, Mark

Re: Weapon Designs -- opinions wanted No, Pathways into Darkness was the first Bungie Macintosh game. Marathon was the first *good* Bungie Macintosh game And man, we just played the hell out of that game on the network at NIH, back when my reflexes were still L33t. cheers, Mark

Re: Orcs as Druidic/Celtic analogs? P'raps. But the Eurasians who arrived in the Americas were no less advanced than the Eurasians who stayed behind. The Inca dynasty was not too old (neither was the Aztec civilisation, for that matter), but neither of them was the first in that area. The Olmecs were building stone houses and plazas in 1500 BC, not hugely different from those the spanish encountered nearly 3000 years later. Teotihucuan - the city the Aztecs made their capital - was founded around 600 BC - or about the same time as the founding of Rome. There's a certain amount of political correctness (or at the other pole, racism) that creeps into discussions of technology and culture. The assumption is that all cultures advance technologically, and that the american cultures just "hadn't gotten around to it" yet. This is one of the major flaws in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" - he asks a question about the development of an important social function and then rules out from the beginning that a society's structure is important. But as far as we can tell, there have been humans in the "new world" for 12-18,000 years - far longer than the time from the world's first cities to the first moon landing. It is fair to say that the Americas were never as heavily populated as Eurasia and Africa, and technological advancement does seem to be tied to having a critical mass of people. But still, there must be more to it than that, since they *did* develop large cities and sophisticated technology in some areas. Not all cultures necessarily make the same decisions and develop the same technologies. Not all of them develop at all. Africans were raising sophisticated stone buildings long before the birth of christ and long before Europe could boast anything fancier than a tumulus. But in Ethiopia (to take one example) when the Europeans turned up 1500 years later, they found people who regarded the ruins of those buildings with awe as the work of angels: they had lost the ability to create anything of that scale. I think history tells us that technology is not a linear advance. cheers, Mark

Re: Orcs as Druidic/Celtic analogs? Nope - the truth is the exact opposite. Mexico has plenty of ore - iron and steel production are two their largest industries (bigger than petroleum, IIRC). In Durango it's right at the surface - there are multiple large opencast mines there. Rich surface iron deposits in Coahuila , too. It's technology failure. Likewise for the Incas - plenty of iron ore (and good quality too) within their empire. The aztecs (and especially the incas) were actually pretty successful metal workers, but they stuck with gold, silver and bronze alloys. We don't why - they just did. Same with the wheel. We know both incas and aztecs knew of it (they made wheeled toys) but even in areas where it would have been very useful, they didn't use it. cheers, Mark

Re: Help Required. Undead PC Actually I'd be selective with the life support which will bring the cost down a bit - some extreme environments will probably be threatening even to a dead body. Cold might not be (unless he freezes solid), but put him somewhere with lots of open flame and he might have a problem. Especially if he has been preserved with bitumen cheers, Mark

Re: How far can a telekinetic throw himself? There's a practical reason as well as a game balance reason, TK is reactionless. Mr 40 TK stands on a car and lifts it with his telekinesis. If he can do that, then presumably the car can interact with his telekinesis and vice versa. When he gets where he wants, he lifts the car in the air to throw it. He now has 1800 pounds of car pressing him down into the ground... Or to put it more simply, try this simple exercise. Lift a chair. So, you can lift - and even throw - a chair (you don't actually have to throw it unless you're Steve Ballmer). Now..... hop up on the chair. Take a firm grip on it. Lift it into the air! Go on, you can do it! Or not. cheers, Mark

Re: Orcs as Druidic/Celtic analogs? Especially the names - I don't think an orc could say "ITZPZPALOTL" or "MICTLANTECIHUATL" Actually, I don't think most players could either cheers, Mark

Re: Historical Fiction

Re: The Perpetual Motion Machine - Does It Work? Horror of horrors, not only will it work (with a little tweaking) I have even used it in my game! There is one catch - there is an upper limit: at some point, you'll run up against the fade rate, which as pointed out gets to be big. Nonetheless, you can amp powers up significantly like this. That limitation can be reduced if you have a horde of helpers casting their aids in a cascade, so that you can get a couple of dozen Aids before the first fade sets in As to *why* I've allowed it - in my fantasy game, this approach fits nicely for ritual magic - a mage can cast a powerful spell without having to spend beaucoup points. Yes, you could do the same thing with the various ritual and assistant limitations, but I like this method better (or more accurately, as wel). You don't have to allow the mage a 200 active point spell - that's especially good when you figure power frameworks into the equation. It also explains why mages take on apprentices in the first place. It's never proved abusive, since to use it you need a lot of people standing around doing nothing but aid and you have to wait to use it, so you're not attacking every phase - in fact that's how my Dymerian battle mages work: each one has 19 apprentices who pump them up so they can let fly with army-frying magics. They tend not to have many spells though, because of all the points spent on having a huge magic skill so they can actually cast the spell safely - if you're casting an 8d6 RKA area effect radius, you don't want it accidentally going off a meter from the end of your finger tip.... Dymerian battles tend to be the big mages slugging it out with each other - big offence versus big defence, while "commando teams" try and take out the other guy's mages. It's a very player-character friendly set up and explains why otherwise rational rulers allow heavily-armed loonies to run about in their domain: come the war, you can draft them At the other end of the scale, I have allowed it for player characters to simulate characters who can pump up their abilities given time, to allow mages who are both flexible and potentially powerful - but not particularly combat-useful - the rules for that are here: http://fitz.jsr.com/roleplay/hero/fantasy/hq/index.html (They're my rules, but Fitz has formatted them much more nicely than I did ) cheers, Mark

Re: New VA campaign throws up need for 'unusual' weapon rules I wouldn't go the entangle route (at least in combat) since shrugging off a lariat that no-one's actively pulling is pretty trivial. What I use for chain/rope type weapons is: +2" reach, +1 OCV for grabs and +5 STR (only to hold). STR Min 7. This works out about the same as a light club in terms of costing as a real weapon, and essentially lets the user make ranged grabs - which after all, is what you do with a lariat, no? If the character wants to buy more specific attacks - a ranged strangle, swinging, etc, I'd permit a small multipower of lariat tricks (maybe 20 or so active points) - that could include an entangle. I'd buy that as 2" stretching (limit no fine manpulation, no "stretching" bonus, OAF, total -2 limitation) plus a multipower of unranged attacks (all OAF, of course) - 3d6 HA (if the lariat is weighted) - so she can whack people with a weight on a rope. - 2d6 entangle (both take damage, burnout, unranged) so she can tie people up and leave them (but then she loses the multipower until she unties them) - garrote: 1" Darkness vs hearing (only to cancel voice of victim, -2) +1d6 HA NND (3d6 w. 15 STR, defence is armour on neck) - 4" swinging - etc cheers, Mark

Re: Alignment Issues Ahh, Corum, Elric, Hawkmoon - same guy, right? Anyway, you're right - Corum did it intentionally. But Elric still managed the same trick, just in a much, much, messier fashion. cheers, Mark

Re: Alignment Issues Oh and forgot to add - from a mechanical point of view, powers that are attained by being specifically aligned can simply take the "Only while remaining true to alignment" limitation (-1/2 sounds about right) which both deals with the mechanical aspect (Mess up theologically and your powers stop working until you atone or otherwise get back on board) and also explains *why* people choose sides - not only a philosophical issue, but by becoming a "Champion of whoever" you get a price break on your powers - or in in-game terms by becoming a champion, you gain extra divine (or infernal) might. cheers, Mark

Re: Lack of published material

Re: Historical Fiction Also check out Leslie Barringer's Neustrian Cycle: basically a story of inheritance theft and revenge set in a low-to-no magic fantasy "middle Europe" - sort of French, sort-of English. Hard to find, but that's what Ebay's for. Also The Dragon Waiting by John M. Ford - set in a high magic alternate Europe where Byzantium is the leading power, but with a magic system inspired by European magical traditions (big influence on my game). Used to be hard to find, but recently reissued. cheers, Mark

Re: Alignment Issues Looping back to the original point of the thread, a nice approach suggested by my friend Fitz (and which I like) is that most people don't have an alignment. It's not something you are born with, stamped on your soul in letters of gold/brass/lead, but something you choose (or presumably that can be chosen for you by an ancestor who made a debatable bargain with some power or other) Thus, to be a paladin and gain groovy paladin powers, you have to dedicate yourself to the cause of Capital G-Good and capital L Law. That gives you access also to magic items produced by the cosmic forces of Good and Law for their champions. If you behave in a non-good fashion, you lose all of those benefits. If you pick up a weapon devised for the use of Evil and Chaos, prepare to use some regeneration on the stump of your wrist - and if you do so knowingly, prepare for some atonement. Likewise, if you decicate yourself to the cause of Evil you get access to k3wl evil powers and useful pillow talk from Succubi. Pick up a Holy Avenger and get your hand burned off - but you can read the Book of Vile Deeds and get some neato party tricks instead of having your brains turned to scrambled eggs. In both cases, however, choosing an alignment also means choosing a side, which draws to you the eye of higher powers on both sides of the fence, who are likely to send their champions to bump you off. Think of it as essentialy joining the Eternal game in much the same way as Greek Heroes did. Do well enough in the game and maybe you get to be a Power yourself. Do poorly and die horribly. Bob the peasant, on the other hand, has no alignment. He's essentially a pawn who gets brutally killed (and then avenged) as the alignment circus rolls through his village. cheers, Mark

Re: Alignment Issues Yeah, but that's the point, No? Elric is a hero who acts in a non-heroic fashion, a basically decent chap who commits evil acts, a violent killer armed with chaotic magic and a chaotic sword who ends up furthering the cause of Law and who - at the end of the series after being the Champion of Chaos, and an Agent of Law, ends up shafting *both* sides. cheers, Mark

Re: Bronze Armor Values

Re: Shield Walls I'd just apply a simple rule - a shield only offers a DCV bonus from one direction. A shield wall extends that so you have no "unshielded" flank and people can't get behind you (except for the guys on the ends!). As for the leaping around, I doubt people in combat actually leap that much, part from the Hero types - yer basic DCV includes deflection and positioning more than leaping about (IMO) - otherwise being in the midst of a warband of axe-weilders would get lethal pretty quickly. You might like to rule that in the press of combat you couldn't actually use the dodge maneuver though. As for the Tortise, it's simply a 3-D shieldwall - it stops plunging fire and people shooting at your unshielded flank as you move. Basically it gives you the +3DCV for that bg shield from all directions. It's not foolproof though - the shields are not fastened together so some missiles will slip through as the soldiers move. cheers, Mark