Inu

Re: Human Torch vs. Pyro, who wins?

Re: WWYCD: Holocaust for the Holidays *grim* Rep for mentioning Lenny! I love that guy. (And I'd join in the discussion, as I've meant to on previous WWYCD threads, but I haven't actually PLAYED superhero games since early university testosterone-fests. Since then I've ended up GMing, so I have no real characters.)

Re: Start BODY at 2 instead of 10

Re: Start BODY at 2 instead of 10 Add to that: Hostage. Until the film goes all typical action flick in the last five minutes, it's incredibly tense, scary, and includes some truly horrifying death sequences. Such as the cop who gets shot a half-dozen times in the chest, and manages to crawl about fifty feet down the road before finally, mercifully, dying. You got some good examples up there. Just adding to the list.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? I thought Player of Games was pretty tame, for Banks... but then, I started with Consider Phlebas. 'The Eaters' still leaves me shivering. O_O

Re: Why are robots always immortal? Oh yeah, and read this. It's a piece written by the author, talking a bit about the Culture and what it's about. If you plan on starting with the Player of Games, it might be better to read this first. If you start with Consider Phlebas, I recommend going in cold. It is heavily to do with the Culture, but you're introduced at a slower rate, and the 'wow' factor is better if you come in knowing nothing. In that case, read the article afterwards. Alternately, read it now to decide if the concepts are interesting enough to get you into the books.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? The first one is Consider Phlebas, but a better starting point might be The Player of Games. Iain M. Banks is not famous for his happy endings. The Player of Games ends nicer than any of the other ones I've read. Along the way in his books, be prepared for some real hideousness. However, due to the fact that he is a VERY skilled writer, none of it is merely for cheap thrills. It all has impact, it all has a place, and it's written for real impact instead of... well, cheap thrills. But with most of his books, you will feel like you've been kicked in the head a few times. I love 'em all the same... or perhaps that's part of the reason I like them. Of course, I haven't read Use of Weapons, yet. I'm told that's the ickiest by far. (Oh, btw, he's also a writer of contemporary horror. If the book is by Iain M. Banks, it's sci-fi, and most likely to do with the Culture. If the book is by Iain Banks - no M. - then it's contemporary horror.)

Re: Why are robots always immortal? Once again, The Culture.

Re: Star Wars - Balancing Jedi with everyone else and heroic vs. superheroic Nah, I don't care about the books. I've not read a single one that I feel fits at all well into the SW universe. But as for their training... this is easily underestimated. Jedi train for something like twenty years, the later 10+ years being on-the-job practical training. (This is going by a single canon example, which may or may not be exceptional. That being that Obi-Wan appeared to be in his late twenties - the book dated him at 30-something, I think? - when he graduated. MEanwhile, we see 5-6 year olds practising with lightsabres, and 14-year-old padawans who can use lightsabres effectively enough to take on multiple commandoes at range for a few seconds. And THAT isn't anywhere NEAR jedi standards.) Guaranteed, there will be holes in that training, but not many. In practical situations, they may end up without their lightsabres. I would think it highly illogical if they were incapable of surviving without them. And here is where I disagree (well, to the second... I agree that they aren't as hardcore as some fans make them out to be). They rely heavily on those things, yes... because why not? They're seriously effective. But we see some evidence of being able to survive without the sabres. Therefore, the possibility exists of all sorts of sabreless combat techniques. Simply because more isn't shown on the screen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. His traning was anything between a month long and a whole buncha months long (it all depends how long it took the Falcon to get to Cloud City. That 'wipe' could stand in for a very, very long time). What we see is some seriously intenstive exercise. Again, there's room for a whole host of other stuff. We don't know: how much he ate, how much he slept, how much of his day was filled with that exercise, what other forms of exercise there were, etc. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. We got a hint... is that the whole, or is that just the tip of the mega-iceberg? There's not enough to say the training IS that intense, but there's too much possibility to say it certainly IS NOT. I agree in one respect: the jedi are not gods. A whole bunch get killed on Geonosis, and a whoooooole bunch more in the temple, by commandoes. In the first case, massed enemy fire coming from all directions. In the second, prolly much the same, coupled with Anakin to take out the truly skilled ones (who could, perhaps, deflect for a few seconds, then leap out of line of fire?). As for the ones who get ambushed, I see this as a combination of two things. One, the commandoes were responding to implanted orders. No emotions. It's fairly established that the Jedi are sensitive to others' emotions - it's why Vader had Luke's friends tortured. So emotionless attackers have something of an advantage. Not too much, though - JEdi can sense danger from droids, after all. The second element is trust. The Jedi had fought at the side of these commandoes for months, or years. They trusted them. Third, just because the sense is something we don't have, doesn't mean it's not affected by the same things, say, eyesight or hearing are. There's 'terrain' - on the battlefield, they may be getting constant 'danger' signals. They learn to ignore some as irrelevant to them, others as imminent. They start getting danger signals from behind them. They trust their buddies to have their backs... and then it's too late. They're dead. That whole 'massed blaster fire' thing again. (Personally, I think it likely that several Jedi managed to escape from these ambushes. I don't think it likely that Obi-Wan and Yoda were the only two to ever escape. They're just the only two we saw on-screen.) Anyway... that's a long post to make one point, really. I don't think Jedi are gods. I don't think they're gimps, either. They're multi-skilled, capable of engaging situations in many ways (from non-violent to violent) and damn good at what they do. They are not, however, undefeatable. This is painfully self-evident. They have a tendency to be overconfident... they certainly have a streak of undefeatability, which tends to lead them to becoming defeatable. I guess that's about all I have to say.

Re: Star Wars - Balancing Jedi with everyone else and heroic vs. superheroic

Re: Star Wars - Balancing Jedi with everyone else and heroic vs. superheroic Yes! Because we never saw it in the films, that means it didn't exist! The characters also do not need to eat... well, Anakin does, but Obi-Wan apparently doesn't. Nor do any of them excrete any substance. Therefore, all SW characters should buy 'need not eat'. And possibly reduced sleeping, because how often did we see that happen? Seriously, if you have the choice between 'lightsabre' and 'punch', 9 out of 10 Jedi choose 'lightsabre'. It's a better choice. In the duels, we see them throwing punches and the like as secondary attacks. Often, force-enhanced punches (see Darth Maul vs Obi-Wan). The jedi clearly have more training than just 'use the force' - I mean, they start using lightsabres at age, what, six? To assume that they get by purely on force knowledge is nonsensical. With lightsabre, 99% chance, jedi wins. We saw a 12-14 year old jedi apprentice fight off a half-dozen commandos for several seconds, even deflecting bolts back against a few. Add on ten or more years of experience, and there you have your basic jedi. Yes, a commando vs unarmed Jedi would be able to put up a fight. As much because of their armour as anything else. But they're goin' down. And if the Jedi has their lightsabre, I'd like to see the commando try to get in that close.

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

Re: Why are robots always immortal? I dunno about data being immortal... what about crashes? Random errors to data storage media? A few wrongs bits of data written could crash the whole system. Or jostling it around too much might physically corrupt things. Current data storage is prone to that kind of thing, even if it's just a tiny chance. By the time you get up to magic-tech like Data, sure, you've got something akin to the human braind - multiple levels of redundancy and the ability to re-wire itself so that it could, theoretically, lose half its mass without losing much in the way of function. (which is nothing to do with the 10% fallacy) Basically, robots are immortal for the same reason that they're always super-strong: most sci-fi writers simply don't think. They go 'hey, mechanical limbs, they'd have to be really strong!' and so we end up with domestic servant-bots that are capable of crushing skulls with their bare hands. Or, worse, capable of leaping around like freakin' ninjas and high-kicking people. At least it's not as bad as people with cyberarms lifting cars. That's always funny.

Re: How to hide a sword Heh, yeah, definition's a real problem. Trying to get five people to agree on the question "what is a rapier?" is only marginally better than asking those same five people "what is a morningstar?" Need to take over the world, so I can institute a uniform set of terminology for historical stuffs.

Re: "the Governmput put a Chip in my Head!" Damn. I didn't even notice it was misspelled.

Re: "the Governmput put a Chip in my Head!" John Birmingham's Weapons of Choice had some interesting chip technology for its soldiers. A combined biomonitor/drug implant that could be accessed by command and control computers, or medics' scanners. It monitored the soldier's vital states, and could administer medications - pain meds, for instance, in the case of injury. In the book, they're of vital importance when the entire combat force is struck down with an extreme disorientation/nausea/etc type effect. Those with chips are up and about in minutes, those without are unconscious for hours, or even longer. Important note was made: self-administration of medication is impossible. It's done by others, or not at all. Only a handful of people in the world would be able to resist the temptation to abuse it.

Re: "the Governmput put a Chip in my Head!" Probably, yes. But progress is being made. It's easily played up, however. It's important for the research to continue, but to express it as something 'just around the corner' is probably a little ambitious. One of the things I got impressed with a few years back was a pilot flying a simulation of a plane using only his brainpower. O_O Electrodes stuck around his head, reading his brainwaves, and he was actually flying the damn thing. Not too well, mind you - response was slow, among other problems - but it was proof of concept, if not working technology. But yeah, I'd go with a figure of a few decades rather than a few years, for this stuff to become operational.

Re: Pulp Stargate! Especially if you ignore certain elements of movie and series. I'd personally want to make space travel a WHOLE lot slower. This means that having Nazi Gou'ald is certainly a valid method of invading a planet as compared to out-and-out pyramid-ship invasion. Particularly if you get a nice manipulative system lord like Ba'al: he impresses the heck outta Hitler with his technology, showing just the barest minimum. Shares some, says: "We want to have dealings with Earth, but only once the Reich rules the world, as we are only willing to deal with the Aryans, as they are the only ones worthy to deal with us." Send a couple of lieutenants to 'help' them with, say, planning. Pretend to be advisory only. Infect key cabinet members. Prolly leave the real big names alone for now, as that leads to potentially being found out. But the end plan? Ten, fifteen years down the track, Hitler's in charge of the world, and a goa'uld! Ba'al rules earth. System lords live for thousands of years, why can't they be patient? If this plan fails, he can always just nuke it from orbit to be sure, then move in and scoop up the survivors. And bang, you have nazi goa'uld, plus humans, all as bad guys! (In a game, I'd prolly make my system lords and jaf'fa a tad smarter, too)

Re: house rule for c.s.l. The solution I was toying with was making Dex cost 1 point per point. But all it affects is skills. Speed is bought up separately, CSLs are bought up separately. Everyone has a base OCV/DCV of 3, which is varied ONLY by CSLs. I like that idea, particularly for more realistic games, where people do vary themselves between offence and defence. In most firefights, I'd expect people to take cover (for + to DCV) and still put most of their levels into DCV, leading to VERY low chances to hit. Enter grenades and tactical movement (fire and movement, perhaps?).

Re: house rule for c.s.l. White Wolf toyed briefly with using their Perception stat for firing guns (Corax, or were-ravens, became the most popular race for firearms users at the same time, no coincidence). I must say, I think I like that idea. Really, there should be a buncha stats governing shooting. Perception for long range, reflexes for short range... have to work stamina in to sniper shooting somehow. Most games just can't support that kind of construct, unfortunately.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/sc_nm/climb_dc New fun toys for more DC. Now you can have one of these even in more realistic games!

Re: How can you feed this many people? Heh, brilliant. I've been using that article for a while, I was hoping it wasn't just hot air. Yeah, it's a bit of culture shock. We're so used to population ballooning that we assume medieval England (for instance) should have had, say, four people in the entire country. Populations in the millions certainly surprised me. But it makes a whole lot more sense. (Thanks for the resources, too, they'll be useful.) To the original article: yes, magic certainly should play a role. I advised fertility magic and the like. Magic may also aid the centralised bureaucracy necessary to feed a big city (by speeding communication, providing long distance 'enforcement'), or may aid a decentralised power structure (by providing stronger points of defence on the landscape, or allowing for increased communication and cooperation). I think you can go either way there, magic doesn't dictate a particular direction of governmental evolution. Hey, if you're talking a D&D level of magic, how dangerous is the countryside? If there are wandering monsters, that may increase the desire for a centralised system that can maintain a standing army and send them where needed. (Or it may result in lots of local fortified villages/towns who can resist strong central power.) Anyone else have ideas on how magic might change things, or make things easier/harder?

Re: How can you feed this many people? Best. Site. Ever. Medieval Demographics Made Easy According to this, urban population will be between 1 and 8 percent of the total population. So applying this to small scale (which may be a mistake, as I'm not sure how well these rules scale), this points to at least 30,000 farmers to support the city of 3000, much as AndyStaples was saying. I think the site mostly agrees with his numbers, so cool. The above probably isn't a great authoritative site (Andy's numbers are prolly your best bet here, not for any empirical reason, just because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about), but I find it very, very handy for rule-of-thumbing fantasy societies. It certainly altered my view of fantasy terrain, from the isolated villages you'll find in most supplements to almost continuous farming land with villages dotted all OVER the joint. Your civilisation being bronze age... certainly does depend on certain knowledge advances. They may be just as advanced, agriculture-wise, as medieval farmers. They may not be as advanced. They may be more primitive skills-wise, but have local fertility-god priests who bless the fields. That would certainly cut down on the required farmers to support the city.

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber Thank you. Anyway, I consider that debate done. I apologise for errancies in my behaviour. Anyway. It's something missing from almost every game. Despite its deficiencies in certain areas, Phoenix Command was very good at doing this, if I remember the system right (my books have long since vanished). I loved that small differences in aiming time made such a large difference in accuracy - so you could fire as fast as you could pull the trigger, but you'd be more accurate if you took longer. Then again, I don't seem to remember it took recoil into account... hmm. Certainly, in almost every game I've seen, there's no reason to choose a smaller weapon over a larger, more damaging one, other than concealability. I've been working on this myself, but I'm yet to come up with a good system that fits into Hero. ('Course, we should probably start a new thread on this if we're gonna keep discussing it. Myself, though, I'm gonna be away from computer for a day or two, so I can't contribute.)