   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] The Red Death

In a message dated 97-06-01 14:48:19 EDT, you write:

<< Where does the Red Death come from? The first time I saw it was on Kerry's
 page. But then, I noticed a cryptic reference (pun intended)  to the Red
 Death
 in Treasures of the Ancients (laser FIR pg 17).   >>

Somebody probably answered this already, but the Red Death was another name
for the cryptic alliance "The Friends of Entropy".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 20:27:05 +0100
   From: James <James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [gworld] 4th Edition General questions

>
> You are quite right.  My only problem with your statement is that you
> peg the "execssive hit point system" as the cause.  In my opinion, the
> problem is the "insufficient weapon damage values", instead.  I believe
> that is what our colleague was trying to point out.

That is fair enough. The problem is the imbalance between hit points and
damage
and not the absolute values. I guess I did stress the excessive hit point
aspect
more than the insufficient damage side. The fact is that while there seems
to be a
nice (I can't say if it is accurate) progression between what damage of
daggers,
swords, pistols and rifle up to the bigger guns, the hit points are more
random.
A first level character can have anything between 20 and 120 hps. So it
seemed to
me the hit points were the more troublesome of the two. But sure, you can 
approach the problem from either angle.

> 
> The difference?  I'm not wandering around the Gamma World with a PC that
> can be killed by a pair of rat bites.  If a normal human has 1-6 hit
> points, how much does a bee sting do?  Nothing?  1 point?  1/10 of a
> point?  

I see what you mean. First level D&D characters can be killed by the
most embarrassing things. That is certainly not what I'd like to see in GW.
Things which are normally not considered dangerous in the real world
(bee stings, rats, kittens) should not be dangerous in the game.
I also think that depending how cinematic the game is 
meant to be, the pcs should have some sort of extra cushion;
call it luck, experience or sheer determination. But something defined 
as a weapon however must be able to hurt by definition.
> 
> I don't find the hit points excessive: in fact, I would rather that
> other games adopted the approach of using such a scheme.  Using such a
> system allow small, basically non-lethal attacks to be defined
> consistent with more normal attack ranges.  Just adjust weapon damage
> ratings accordingly.

The discussion so far has been about tweaking GW; making minor
adjustments to improve playability. But if you wish to extend the concept
to what makes a good damage system, I  think you want to
ditch the concept of hit points altogether. Sure if you increase the scale,
increasing the number of hit points you can define things more precisely.
But you are still looking at damage from a purely accumulative point of
view
which always reminds me a Super Mario style game.  Ultimately, any hit
point
system  is going to be rather crude. Personally I am quite fond of the
Fudge
 damage tracking  system in which the magnitude of the single wound is
generally more  important then the accumulative effect. Fudge manages to
 remain simple but it is very expressive. The Star Wars system is also not
too bad.

Regards,

--- James ---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:16:53 +0100
   From: James <James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [gworld] 4th Edition General questions


>  A friend of mine had an idea: The majority of weapons are anti-riot
> oriented, designed and WIDELY distributed during the great civil unrest
> that occured before the fall. They're made to screw people up, but not
> kill them.

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't really solve the problem. From what I
understand of the 4th ed world, the weapons people commonly carry are
not artifacts but build by the local gunsmiths, hence the prevalence of
flintlocks.

>  You can also say people after the fall are nothing like those from
before.
> Who was more likely to survive? Joe Blow with the mutation ``NewEyes:
change
> your eye color instantly. Available at any Walmart'' or Sgt. Blow of the
> North American Army with ``Regeneration, Total: x4542; available to
Special
> Forces only''.

I don't question that the average GW sentient is meant to be a lot tougher
than folks nowadays. What is wrong is that the  weapons technology  has not
compensated for that. If everyone has conceptually taken the Captain
America serum,
surely the military would have to adopt higher caliber ordinance or perhaps
use poison
on their melee weapons or something. The fact is we are meant to believe
that the
average Bonparr solider is armed with a sword and a flintlock rifle which
would 
be roughly equivalent to a screwdriver and a rolled up newspaper in our
world.
Their battle must last forever!

My solution has been to slash the hit points for ordinary npc's. Conversely
you can up the damage as you did, or maybe up the tech level.
> 
>  Or you can just say the weapons systems suck. I raised all of the
damamges
> massively. It helped.

Actually, I'm curious,. by how much did you up the damage ratings?

Regards,

--- James ---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 00:14:42 +0100
   From: James <James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [gworld] New GW site

> I just have to comment on your site.  The layout works quite well!
> And thanks for not getting carried away with frames!  It's nice
> to see someone use them without overusing them for once.

Why, thank you.  I'm pretty much learning as I go along. So II had a play
with frames and added an animated biker for my mutant biker site.
But I agree it is all too easy to get carried away and add special
effects just for the sake of it.
>  I haven't
> read through all of the material on your site yet, but so far I've
> found it to be very entertaining.

Well, it is pretty "talky" and most of the stuff will be familiar
to anyone who reads the list. The fact GW has always been a
"problem child" for me. On one hand I found myself drawn
to it, on the other, I was not being very successful running it.
But bit  by bit, after a string of failed GW campaigns (or
campaigns inspired by GW but run with a different system)
I've finally come up with something which is really running well.
The mechanics are smooth, the tone and pace are just right...
The site is just a way of celebrating this "victory" of sorts.

Perhaps the more interesting part is the section that relates
to my npc Wizards, with my drawings and a short blurb next
to each. It's the only bit that hasn't appeared one way or the other
on the list before.
>
> Also, thanks for the plug for my site.  :-)
>
Hey, we Thundarr fans gotta stick together :-)

> I've added a link to your new page from mine, too, just in case there
> are some GW fans who haven't yet subscribed to this list.
>
That's great.

Regards,

--- James ---
