Vondy

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs According to whom?

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Because of its reliance on exponents and the bell curve all hero characters need to fall in a reasonable range of ability levels appropriate to the campaign in question to remain playable and not be disruptive. If a player builds a character who breaks the curve it is not artificial - but pragmatic - to say no. The game will simply not work, or won't be fun for you or others, if you have a pro from dover who builds a character who falls out of bounds. Instead of saying no, sit down, determine what ranges various abilities should be for the campaign, and then discuss that. If he wants to max out in an area - fine. However, the suggestion that you ask "why so many levels?" is also a good one. If he wants to be offsetting penalties all the time then relevant PSLs are more appropos. Also, that's the number of levels he needs to consistently go for headshots. So, you may wish to nix scads of PSLs for Hit Locations. That would lead to a very lethal campaign which raises the question: is that the style of campaign you are looking for? If not, say so and say no. Insofar as you have a cogent reason for saying no there is nothing arbitrary about it.

Re: removing/reducing the STUNx I use the hit location chart with its attendant multipliers. Its never been a problem. I prefer it to the stun multiplier die method used in many superheroic games.

Re: Musings on Random Musings S'okay. I hate that movie. But its okay.

Re: A Thread for Random Musings So, I'm sitting there is our big studio with the lights off because it feels like the CinC on a battleship. The only light is from the PC monitor, sound boards, phones, compressors, and other audio do-dads. I'm doing a remote show via tiline with the host in Jerusalem and me in Beit El. And I ask myself: Why? Why are we doing this? Not why as in an existential why. Not why as in the mission is hopeless. No, why as in "what are we thinking running our operation from a physical studio worthy of a terrestrial radio station when we are an internet radio station with a live stream, on demand audio, and podcast downloads?" All of this made sense when Arutz-7 was a pirate radio station broadcasting from a boat in international waters. That ended with prison terms and an impounded ship, folks. Half of my hosts send audio via internet. Most of those mix it themselves. Almost all the rest of them do monologue or PHONE interview shows. We used to have several call in shows but times have changed. Only one host ever takes callers anymore. And that's once in a blue moon. Why am I paying a tech when I can set up each of my hosts to record and mix audio, including phone interviews, from their home computers or a digital recorder? Its the 21st century for God's sake! You can record phone interviews with only a smart-phone if you want. Why are we working from a stationary studio in the remote highlands of Samaria in the wireless, remote access world? Calling parliamentarian aides to set up interviews is a trial. Half the time they ask: are you in the building? Good question! If I'm supposed to be interviewing knesset members and notables why aren't I in the knesset building? I can live stream that to the internet with a laptop! Fantasy: "Israel National Radio Live From the Knesset!" What is the point of a studio when all I need is an encoding computer, broadcast computer, and a storage editing computer that can be accessed remotely while sitting in a closet? True, it means the hosts pay for their phone calls, but really, with one exception, the one's who make a lot of calls do their shows as calling cards for their own non-profits. Why aren't THEY paying? And, why am I uploading all the podcasts and making the show pages when, with an internet connection and logon, the host can do that, too? I mean, its the expletive Internet! What is the point without remote accesss? If we get the hosts into gear we can cut down our own work significantly. Then the question will be: Why aren't we out in the world doing more topical, feature, and expose related audio that supports the news site? And gets more exposure that way, anyways. Why?

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Re: Undead Labor: why not? At this point the Labor party is undead. I do not see a problem.

Re: Musings on Random Musings In that context I would say the only difference is that in the christian world the course of theology study is a preparation for entering an ordination program, whereas, in Judaism, it is the ordination program. There are three kinds of semichah. The course of study most rabbis take is 3-4 years and is roughly a BA equivalent. Adding martial, conversion, and legal procedure is another 2 years, give or take. And dayyanut, which takes 3-4 years, is considered a doctoral equivalent. Oddly, in the diaspora, you basically have two paths: just take the basic rabbinic course of study and be done with it, or add dayyanut with only some dayyanim learning the marital/conversion/procedural part. This is because you only need one man on a court of three who knows those pieces (ordained or not) to rule on marriage, divorce, and conversion. He can just grab two other righteous Jews (perferably talmudei chochamim) and say "we're the court." In Israel, however, you often have people who, upon finishing the basic course, do one or the other, but not both. I don't know where I'm at in terms of academic equivalency. I just want to know.

Re: Musings on Random Musings Its complicated. An academic degree in theology is an academic course of study you take prior to entering the ordination process. You can be a theology major with no position, or only a lay position. And you can be ordained, "of the cloth," without a position. Its two subtly different things. But the distinction lies in this: christian ordination means vested authority to perform sacraments. And the way Jews and Christians use the word "priest" is radically different. In Judaism, a priest is a descendant of Aaron, usually presumptively by family tradition, though some few families have scrolls copied through the generations dating back to the early second temple era. The priestly rites, or sacraments, are theirs - even if they are an ignoramus. However, outside the life of the temple cult, you really don't need a priest for Jewish religious life. Any sufficiently educated Jew can lead the community. A rabbi isn't a priest and rabbinic ordination does not empower him to perform sacraments as Christian ordination does. The commandments outside the temple service belong to the nation as a whole. Ordination today is the sanction of the (modern) religious community to decide ritual issues on behalf of a local community who chooses to listen. And, in truth, a sufficiently righteous man of significant scholarship can answer these questions without what passes for ordination today. The famed Yisrael Meir Kagen, known as the chofetz chaim, was considered the greatest halachic decisor of lithuania during the first half of the 20th century. He didn't have semichah (ordination) until he applied for a passport and needed to list "rabbi" as his profession. He ultimately went to one of his peers and asked him to test him for semichah, which resulted in great embarrassment on the part of the rabbi approached, who famously asked "I am supposed to test you?" Ancient semichah was one thing and one thing only: magesterial power; the authority to make binding and enforceable decisions on matters of ritual, civil, or criminal law while sitting on a court of 3, 23, or 71. The largest court, the sanhedrin in the chamber of stone in the temple in Jerusalem, was also empowered to legislate for all ritual matters and matters of interpretation. It was sort of like a big bearded SCOTUS and Senate of ritual matters all in one (the check being the king, which we can translate as "secular government"). It also allowed decisions on some matters as an individual in the absence of a court convening. Their decision was binding and could be enforced. It made you a magisterial force in a world where the king and his government were one branch of power and the religious courts the other. There is no rabbi alive with that power today, even in Israel. The only tangible power rabbis exercise is over marriage and divorce, and even there its a matter of long-entrenched communal necessity rather than enforceable power. Or rather, the mores run so deep that its not a question. Real rabbinic power may reassert itself slowly in our lifetimes (or our children's lifetimes), but for now, the modern institution of semichah (ordination) is just social sanction to make decisions in ritual law for a community who cares to listen. Most "rabbis" today never take the tests for Jewish criminal and civil law because its not necessary to the role they fill and would, therefore, not be qualified to serve as A Rabbi of Old were we to see the rebirth of the genuine article. Indeed, so important is the distinction that the Babylonian Talmud referred to those with "real semichah" in Israel as "Rabbi" and those without it in Bavel as "Rav." The material distinction is immense. Modern Jewry has basically forgotten it. Ancient ordination was a practical matter: every nation must have courts and ours were rooted in Torah. Modern ordination is a sociological convenience whose power rests in "how dare you!" rather than "seize him up!" Living amongst gentiles, we decided we wanted pretty certificates and ritual machers because gentiles had them so we created a test and certificate system to mimic universities and appointed "men of the cloth" when, in truth, we are all, each and every one of us, expected to study, know, and perform the law. Few who become ritual machers today bother to become "dayyanim" (rabbinic magistrates), and modern rabbis are tested and given social approbation to rule on ritual matters which, in theory, any talmud chocham (erudite Jewish scholar) could decide whether he'd taken the tests or not. It confuses the issue and creates false perceptions. People want a leader they can ascribe pomp and circumstance to, and in the absence of a community hemorrhaging erudite scholars, you need someone who knows which end is up. The modern institution is a dissonant necessity for all but the rarest of communities. But really, a community filled with talmudei chochamim doesn't need a rabbi. What on earth for? The real deal requires one who has it to lay his hands (semichah) on the student and grant him sanction to rule all aspects of law. In the ancient world that meant granting power. You were entering a man into the pool of judges and the rule was: a court that cannot enforce its decisions is not a court. In the modern world it usually means granting social approbation that isn't strictly needed for what most rabbis actually do, which is to decide ritual matters. Any Jew with sufficient mastery of our basic texts can decide these matters - and while he must be respectful - may do so against a majority in disputed matters (insofar as he has a cogent scriptural-talmudic argument to make) because we have no sanhedrin in the chamber of stone to decide such disputes. And haven't in a long time. We do have their precedents, though, which we must live by. Indeed, until we do have a sanhedrin again the halachic system is a Pagani being pushed by foot through hole we cut in the floorboards. We've turned the world's hottest sports car into a Flintstone's car. Yaba-daba-doo. In other words, unless you are dealing with a dayyan, who are not so common, your local orthodox rabbi is probably just a Talmud Chocham (a scriptural-talmudic scholar) who has been invested in a shadow of glory by a community who has taken it upon themselves to listen to him and trust in his knowledge because he's jumped through the hoops to get a piece of paper. In truth, he's what the talmud calls a "rav." The paper, itself, does not necessarily mean he's the most learned man in the community, or that outside the running of the synagogue, he has any more authority than a talmud chocham who did not jump through those hoops. Indeed, we have two separate sections of the code of law: hilchot kavod rav (the honor due a formally appointed communal leader - and note it uses the talmud's term "rav") and hilchot kavod talmud chocham (the honor due to a scholar). While we hope the "rav" is a talmud chocham, and he doesn't deserve his position if he's not, they aren't one and the same. We call people "rabbi" out pragmatic respect for a communal leader due to the normative absence of scholarship among modern laity. But it doesn't make a chicken-hawk the mighty eagle. Only a modern dayyan is qualified to be real rabbi should the rabbinic courts emerge with real power as opposed to the smoke-em-if-you've-got-em courts we've got today. I've taken the tests for ritual and marital law (marriage and divorce). I'm working, ever so slowly, through the tests for dayyanut. As for me, I have no position and desire no position. I feel the routine exercise of authority is corrosive to the soul. As is adulation. Few men can handle either without detriment to their character. Or, at least, I can't. I do not desire to be called rabbi. Even after I finish with all the tests. I'm just taking them because, if you know you've got a test coming, you study harder.

Re: A Thread for Random Musings I am of the opinion talk-backs are of dubious utility, require staff to moderate, and can negatively impact perceptions of the article they are attached to. A great many people with time for talk-backs are extreme, unbalanced, or utterly lacking social grace. And, a media outlet isn't a public forum. You create it as a vehicle for your body of work. The canard that not allowing them is censorship is ridiculous. If someone wants to comment they can submit a letter to the editor or create their very own media outlet. Blogs are free. Link to the article and comment away. In fact, please do. Those links will push up my search rankings. But, for some reason, the concept is pervasive. I have to go through the radio talk-backs. I cull a great many of them. I'm notoriously ruthless. Among those who don't get published.... El Shaddy? Really? Is that a gangsta in the hood? What's with all the extra gaggy h sounds? Sadly, this guy is more coherent than some of our other stalkers. And at least he doesn't write WITH HIS CAPS LOCK ON. And then, our hosts often share their stalker mail with me... The hosts comment: "Gav, how do I block this guy?"

Re: Musings on Random Musings It seems to me I've made an international move and I'm thriving. I must be doing something right. Back off, why don't you? I realized several years ago I don't have to be "Israeli" to succeed. You don't have to give up your identity and values to thrive.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Re: Musings on Random Musings For me its a question of context. These are all social mores rather than rules. If you are dealing with someone in their professional capacity, or a classroom setting, then relevant titles and formalities are generally appropriate. Being a peer or long association may change that, but in general we start out formal and loosen up with time. At A7, we air a weekly archeology show. The hosts usually have a two segment interview with an archeologist with a segment before and after. Because we are calling them to talk about their profession we always refer to them as professor or doctor as appropriate. If I were dealing with these archeologists in a social setting I would call them by their first name because using the Hebrew equivalent of "Mr." is generally looked askance at. For some reason, if an Israeli is calling you "adon [surname]," they are either trying to appease you or sell you something. Clergy, however, is a very sticky wicket. A clergyman fills a position of respect on a communal level (rather like a president, cabinet member, senior legislator). Their role as a spiritual leader requires they always be in their professional character and context. And how you address them is regarded as representative of the office they hold. It may be, in private, they ask you to call them by their personal name, but in general the social mores is that "it is not done." On the other hand, that's for someone who holds the position. I have my little ordination paper-thingy. I DO NOT like being addressed as "rabbi" and will Gibb's head-slap anyone who tries it. I am not a communal leader. I'm a private citizen who passed some tests.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Re: A Thread for Random Musings By some quirk of circumstance I ended up with a copy of Blood & Chocolate (Book). I've always liked the idea of urban fantasy, but the execution is usually so poor, the writing so bad, and the plot-theme so cliche ridden I toss the books before getting more than a few chapters in. Time is precious. This one is written cogently enough (for a first novel) that I'm willing to tolerate the author's mild loquaciousness for a few more chapters to see if the plot really grabs me. The protagonists emotional world is presented vividly enough that the teenage years as an allegorical vehicle for monstrous urges vs. civilized society at large might not fall flat. We'll see. Sixteen year old girls aren't protagonists I usually take much interest in, but we'll see...

Re: A Thread for Random Musings There is such a thing as being promoted too fast.

Re: Musings on Random Musings

Re: Conan: The Current Movie in Progress..... This is one of those "does not translate from one medium to another" issues. Comics can sometimes make the stylistically ridiculous look cool. But when you make a live action film and religiously stick to the comic look, you often get aesthetically ridiculous or inappropriate results. Yellow and blue spandex may look cool in a printed comic, but there's a reason the X-Men films dropped that in favor of black leather. Indeed, almost all comic book heroines will look like latex fetish models if you go with their costumes on screen. That may have a certain prurient verve, but its hard to take seriously. And, Adam West's Batman suit was loyal to the comics at the time. That was not, necessarily, a good idea. The Asgard pics I've seen, as well as the costumes, make it look like an art-deco bordello filled with people dressed in foam rubber and shoulder-pads-of-doom chic. I loved the Thor comics back when I was actually reading them (almost 20 years ago), but let's face it, as a live action costume his big booty flares and football season shoulders are a bit silly.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games I have never jumped out of a perfectly good airplane. I hope I never have to. I have done some technically difficult rock-climbs that required short bits of free climbing to segway. That's more than enough for me.

Re: Yet another D&D to Fantasy HERO conversion You have put a great deal of work into this. It will be a valuable resource for many. I would make one observation, however. You say spell lists are Power Pools set at 45 points. This makes it sound like a Variable Power Pool. If that is the case, and you are not house-ruling the cost structure, the cost is not correct. A Variable Power Pool's modifiers are applied to its control cost, not the pool itself. I presume, therefore, that you mean that spell lists are Multipower Frameworks with a 45 pt Reserve.

Re: Where do gangsters get pool babes? There is a certain amount of Truth in Television, here. There have seldom been female crime bosses, and female mobsters are a rare exception. They have existed, but its more of an exception that proves a rule, especially with the mafia. As a result, we were talking past one another. I was responding to the question "where do gangsters get pool babes?" My answer: base motives. Gangsters have money, make use of power outside the law, have an unsavory populist mystique, and may be seen as protection. A young women less concerned with the quality of the man than the quantity he provides, and not possessing overly refined morals herself, could well trade on her "poolside looks" in exchange for access to those things.

Re: Where do gangsters get pool babes? Filthy lucre. Power. Exclusive circles. Protection. Flouting society's rules. Women also have base motives. Not just men.

Re: Determining danger without Danger Sense I've always taken talents to be an optional mechanic. Very useful, but not obligatory to use. Just make a Perception roll. You can apply modifiers based on how obvious or subtle the sensory danger cue is. There are tables for perception roll modifiers in the book. I'm not sure how apropos skill rolls are in split second situations, but if the character has a few seconds to process you could have them be complimentary rolls to perception, which is really just an instinctive, sense based intelligence rolls.