   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:02:17 -0500
   From: "GAMMAKNIGHT" <GAMMAKNIGHT@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] losing my religion

Yes I do use religion in my game. I have based it off Rush "2112". If you
listen to the song it is great for GW.

----------
> From: Tom Foster <yoiko99@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [gworld] losing my religion
> Date: Monday, June 09, 1997 11:24 AM
>
> Hey now,
>
> Another interesting issue came up last game we had.  Where have all the
> religions gone?  The only ones left are the ones that worship the
> technology of the ancients. This doesn't seem quite right to me. The
> worship of something intangible has been with the human race since the
> first recorded history, with the worship of the forces of nature. From
> there, the progression went to a more intagible god/gods/godesses, and
> eventually monotheism. So where is this progression in Gamma World? It
> doesn't make sense that the -only- religions practiced would be the ones
> that involve the worship of artifacts and such. I can see how those can
> exist, but I also think it would be natural that others, if they didn't
> survive in some bizarre form, would rise also. It's almost like they're
> making people unable to think in the abstract, which is pretty odd to
> me. There could be a plethora of religions that could have developed,
> especially considering the sentiency of animals and plants. But nothing
> is detailed in the books on this. So, what do you all think? Does anyone
> else run campaigns with other religions in it?
>
> Tom

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:28:52 PDT
   From: "Tom Foster" <yoiko99@hotmail.com>
Subject: [gworld] greenfolk

Hey now,

Here's another thing that has cropped up in Reggie's campaign. When we
first started gaming in GW, I chose as one of my players (due to a 
player shortage, we were each playing two characters), a mutated tree. I 
thought it would be rather fun, and different from anything I'd ever
played before. I soon found that in GW the plant-based characters are
given a woeful mistreatment in comparison to the other races. These are 
some of the problems I've encountered:

* Plants generally have a _very_ hard time getting armour. And unless 
your plant has a carapace mutation and a killer dex, it's gonna be a 
big, easy target.

* Healing for plants? Aside from the natural healing from time, or, once 
again, a lucky mutation roll (regeneration, total healing), you are 
S.O.L.  Medkits don't work on plants.

* Every other race, including NPC races like the Created (but they don't
exist...), (sorry, campaign-joke), have their own Cryptic Alliance.
Except the plants. You'd figure that someone would have thought, 'hey,
it was those _mammals_ who messed the world up, Gamma Terra should
belong to -us-!!' or something.

* I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I know it holds at least
for trees - you grow in size _per level_!!  My tree started out at
roughly man-size, and now, a few levels later, she's almost eleven feet
tall! (Yes, 'she.' I could tell you, but it's a long story.) That would
be okay, but you don't get any strength bonuses for your increased mass,
so it becomes more of a nuisance than anything.

Some of the only benefits I'd found were that she could pretty much just
'root' for the night for food, and sometimes it was a good thing to not
be recognizable by live metal, but these don't outweigh the
disadvantages that the green folk are faced with in a GW campaign. Reg &
I pretty much agree that it seems that they only included that as a
character race after the fact, and didn't put too much thought into it
when they did it. However, I love dearly my plant characters, and I'm
running one in my present campaign, and struggling to make her (yes, her
again. Shorter story, but still a story) useful to the group (hence the
dual-classing question, the esper issue, etc.)

So now, after all that long-windedness, I put to the group:

Do any of you deal with the green fold as PCs? Do you handle them
differently?

Thanks,

Tom F.

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:59:21 -0500
   From: GameMaster <dmovrich@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Metamorphosis Alpha articles

John Horton wrote:
>
> Fellow Mutants,
>
> To anyone who doesn't already have them, I'd like to offer copies of some
> old Dragon articles relating to Metamorphosis Alpha.

<huuge snip>
> John H.

	John,
   I'd love to have a copy of these itmes, however I'd settle for a
xerox or something if it would make it easier for you. Maybe you can
just scan 'em and E-mail 'em to me? Let me know.
						thanks in advance
							GameMaster
						   dmovrich@execpc.com

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
   From: Donovan Colbert <dcolbert@campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] losing my religion

you wrote
>is detailed in the books on this. So, what do you all think? Does anyone
>else run campaigns with other religions in it?
>
>Tom
>

 No I don't, but I will. Good point. Some full-fledged religious nuts would
make a great campaign. I'm not sure where everyone's respective games are
set after the cataclysm, but imagine a group of Fundementalist Militants up
in the hills of Montana who survived the original apocolypse and started
rebuilding the world in their image. Where would their theology evolve to
over 500-2500 years? What would the fables of their religion sound like? Fun
sub-plots to a campaign, at the very least.

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:34:44 -0400 (EDT)
   From: TimC27@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] losing my religion

In a message dated 97-06-10 23:54:49 EDT, you write:

> There could be a plethora of religions that could have developed,
>  especially considering the sentiency of animals and plants. But nothing
>  is detailed in the books on this. So, what do you all think? Does anyone
>  else run campaigns with other religions in it?
>

Sort of.  I am considering taking some current religions and twisting them
slightly(or greatly) for a post-holo world.

Tim

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
   From: TimC27@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] hit point thing.

In a message dated 97-06-10 23:59:28 EDT, you write:

> Simulating this via hit points is sheer madness and is a consequence
>  of the D&D's uninspired treatment of armor which makes the target
>  harder to hit instead of simply absorbing damage.

Not madness... just a way of trying to make it make sense.  But to say D&D is
'uninspired' is ludicrous on its face.  It is the progenitor for ALL other
role-playing games.  It may stretch credibilty, lack flexibility, or fail to
be realistic, but its very existence is the definition of 'inspired'.

It still works for a lot of people, and is a very playable, simple approach.
 For those of us who want to have RPG's describe reality a bit better, it
needs some refinements.  You can devise a complex system or simply say,
'damn, another hit grazed you', but they amount to the same thing.

Tim

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
   From: TimC27@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] the hit point thing.

In a message dated 97-06-10 20:35:00 EDT, you write:

> An idea, at least: my thanks to TimC27 for the wonderful insight of
>  using CN loss to indicate lethal vs. non-lethal damage.
>
>  Craig

Oh, pshaw.  Looks like you took the ball and ran with it.  Will have to
ponder your post to understand it better.

Tim

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:56:50 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Request: Looking for a copy of GW 4th edition

James,

	I think that you can still get them...have you tried some of the various...
	oh wait...England.

	Still, give it a try, I'm certain you can still track down a copy.  I did,
	just recently.  And so did someone else on the list.

	I got it at a discount off the cover price too!

Reggie

----------

   From: 	James[SMTP:James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 	Sunday, June 08, 1997 2:15 PM
To: 	gworld
Subject: 	Re: [gworld] Request: Looking for a copy of GW 4th edition

I still kick myself for not having picked up MAO when I
had a chance.

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:54:59 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] 4th Edition General questions

below...

----------
   From: 	James[SMTP:James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 	Sunday, June 08, 1997 2:03 PM
To: 	gworld
Subject: 	Re: [gworld] 4th Edition General questions

> -- Depends on where you are, I'd say.  If you "believe" the rules,
> Ascension and Bonpar are at Tech IV which means they have better than
> flintlocks for "the common man".
>

Nah,  of course I don't "believe" the rules. I've redefined GW for
my campaign and I'm sure most other GMs do too. In fact, at least one of
the points of this discussion is to show that the "vanilla GW" is
inconsistent and see what various people do to fix it.  But if
you want to get technical, according to Overlord of Bonparr
the flintlock is still the standard issue in the army and
Bonparr itself described as "verging on Tech IV".

-- Good catch.  You're quite correct.  It's only Ascension that is at Tech
IV.

All I was saying is that these standard weapons are not
fit for their purpose. And it's not because there isn't the
know-how to build more deadly low tech weapons ( a buffalo
gun is not substantially more complex than a .38 carbine),
it's just sheer sloppiness by the game designer.

-- And good point.  You're right.  They should all be carrying around the
equivalent of "cannons" which WERE available in "Tech III" society.  Very
early on, if I remember correctly.  So, what's the damage for an old style
(Tech III) cannon?

-- By the way, while we're on this point, it seems to me that there should
be some better examples as to where things fall in the Tech categories.
 I'm thinking seriously of getting an encyclopedia and determining where
all the interesting things fall (i.e. is Dynamite Tech III or Tech IV)

Reggie

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:49:42 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] hit point thing.

I've got a question about the hit points debate:  Why?

I've played & GM'ed in campaigns that use critical hit rules, one shot and
your PC (or your opponent) is decapitated (burned to a crisp, disolved into
a pool of slime, etc.) and I've played in the games where it was pure DnD
style hit points, and I must say, I prefer the straight hit points for the
following reasons:

1.  It's so much simpler.  The critical hit rules take about 10 times as
long to figure out as standard combat hits.

2.  I hate losing my character to a single lucky roll.  And as a GM I hate
losing my plot-important NPC to a single lucky roll.

3.  It emphasizes combat and de-emphasizes role playing.

4.  If you intend to NOT have players roll up characters each week, you
MUST compensate by miraculous healing being available around the corner.
 (And GW is not set up for that IMHO)

5.  (And this is the kicker for GW)  If the critical hit system includes
"Bones broken" "Ankle Sprained" "Arm removed" type effects, you must DESIGN
A HEALING SYSTEM FOR THAT.  And that's REAL compicated.  (Hmmm..how long
does a broken arm take to heal, and what's the game affects for a broken
"off" hand?)

Yes, it's more realistic, but no thanks, it's just not worth it.

Reggie

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:32:52 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Espers, a new concept...

below...

----------
   From: 	Tom Foster[SMTP:yoiko99@hotmail.com]
Sent: 	Monday, June 09, 1997 8:45 AM
To: 	gworld
Subject: 	Re: [gworld] Espers, a new concept...


My
GM is just too homicidal to allow the thinker-type characters to sit
back and let the combat be fought by the muscleheads.

-- Hey!!!  I resemble that remark!  er...Resent.

;-)

Reggie

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:00:18 +0100
   From: James <James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [gworld] losing my religion

>
> Another interesting issue came up last game we had.  Where have all the
> religions gone?  The only ones left are the ones that worship the
> technology of the ancients. This doesn't seem quite right to me.
[snip]

I agree it is a strange omission. In my campaign while religion does not
play any
big role but the typical small town will have its church or temple.  I
imagine
these towns very much like those in Western movies. As such it seems
fitting
to me that the hard working farmers should once a week don their best
clothes
and go to church. But I haven't developed the religion itself beyond the
usual generic
Christianish derivative.  The closest I ever came to having religion taking
a major
role in the plot was via a traveling preacher/con man npc vaguely modeled
on Steve Martin in "Leap of Faith".

Still I'd be interested to read if anyone has developed some odd cults of
off-beat
religions.

Regards,

--- James ---

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:15:58 +0100
   From: James <James@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Another mutant

Greetings Tormentor,

I am honored that my site has been dubbed "mother of all GW sites".
I'll add your site to my list next time I update my pages, if its okay.

BTW I recall the feeling of pure joy when I discovered, after a year on the
Net
this little but very active GW community. So I know how it feels.

And yes, I do remember your character generator, though in all fairness
the new windows version is a killer.

Regards,

--- James ---

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

   Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:49:41 -0700
   From: John Horton <jhorton@admsvcs.csun.edu>
Subject: Re: [gworld] hit point thing.

At 06:22 PM 6/8/97 +0100, James wrote:
[earlier comments snipped]
>
>I've heard this story of how hip points should represent more that
>just physical damage capacity, but I don't buy it. Quite frankly
>I don't feel I can say to my players "The shot missed you, knock off 7 hit
>points";
>it's wildly counter-intuitive. And I really hate it when every time a
>character
>is shot, the wound is somehow "only a graze". Which is why I'd rather
>just assume GW characters are so far removed from human norm that
>they can take that type of punishment and run GW like a supers game.
[minor snip]
>
>The concept that with more experience the characters can prevent/reduce
>damage should not be incorporated in the hit points. It should be
>reflected in a defensive roll. Most modern systems tend to deal
>with combat as opposed rolls of the attackers offensive skill
>vs the defenders parry/dodge skill.  Its character's skills that make him
>hard
>to kill and which improve with time. If caught off guard and the player
>cannot make his defensive roll this character is as vulnerable as
>the rest of us and, as you say, even a dagger can be deadly.
>
>Simulating this via hit points is sheer madness and is a consequence
>of the D&D's uninspired treatment of armor which makes the target
>harder to hit instead of simply absorbing damage.
>
Hi all,

I've been enjoying this HP discussion very much, particularly because I've
always felt a little uneasy about the high numbers of HP for beginning GW
characters and this discussion has really made me examine the system.  I
know I'm a little late with this, but I'd like to weigh in ... on the side
of the HP system the way it stands.  The following is all IMHO, of course.

I agree that the current system is flawed, and many of your proposed
alternatives sound pretty good, but I can think a few advantages to the
"standard" system:

1.  It's simple.  I make a roll.  If I get higher than a given number, I
make another roll for damage.  I'm done.  Ditto when someone attacks me.
With a system like the one James describes above, you're always rolling at
least twice for every attack.  Also, it probably is more realistic if your
armor absorbs damage and eventually wears out, but I try not to get bogged
down in that much detail.  I'd rather keep the combat simple and the story
moving along.

2.  It's familiar.  Most of us (I think) started with D&D and this type of
HP system.  Although some house rules are indispensable, I don't like to
introduce any more than I have to.  (Don't make me create any new tables,
please! ;-)
And there's that nostalgia factor again...

3.  It's more predictable.  This may not sound like an advantage, but it's a
whole different game if my character has to worry about being killed by some
psycho with a dagger while he's trying to relax and have a shot of white
lightning in the local saloon.  In a system where he only has a few HP, or
one where his defenses must be up (and he has to roll well) to fend off
attacks, he's going to have to build a bunker to relax in!  With so much
randomness at play, he'll never get to be that swaggering tough guy who
knows it's going to take a lot to take him down.  But maybe that's the kind
of game some prefer.  For my domars, it's already easy enough to get wasted
in GW.

I will admit that HP equalling luck, skill, etc. works better for
hand-to-hand type combat than with guns, but as long as both the GM and
players agree about how hit points work, I don't find it that much of a
stretch.  I picture a movie where the first shot at the hero always
ricochets off a rock next to him, or
breaks the window he's looking out of, etc.  It missed him, but we all know
it used up some of his luck!

Previous posts described two situations that are made difficult by the
current HP system.  The first was labelled the "freeze" situation:  someone
has got the drop on you.  How many times have we seen a Western where a
character in this predicament either dives behind some cover to avoid
getting shot or ducks/rolls, etc. while drawing his weapon and shooting?
(Or even just draws and shoots!)  Ok, in GW it's possible to charge at that
guy with the Mk. V blaster and survive to beat on him with your club, but
only if you're willing to take the 10cm hole in your hide and the massive
damage that goes with it.  Also, it depends on what kind of shape the
character is in when someone's pointing a weapon at him.  In other words,
timing counts for a lot.  If you've just been thrashed within an inch (or a
die roll) of your life by some glowing Legionnaire maniac, you're going to
think twice before taking on those couple of bumpkins pointing flintlocks at
you and telling you you're trespassing.

The second situation was that of thugs hired to rough up the party.  Because
of such high HP, they had to use shotguns to make any impression.  But what
about stunning the party first, then beating them up?  Maybe the tech level
was too low for stun rifles/whips/grenades, but it's a thought.  (Low tech =
blowguns with paralyzing poison, maybe?  And what about knockout drops or
sleep gas or something?)  A bad guy can dish out a lot of punishment in the
(20-con) minutes that a character is paralyzed (and the GM could always
fudge a little on the amount of time the characters are incapacitated).

Well, I've gone on long enough.  When it comes right down to it, I'm happy
with any system that works ok, as long as the company's good and the games
are frequent.  Now if I can just convince my players to start a GW campaign...
:-)

John H.

p.s.  I do plan to use the idea that shopkeepers and other everyday NPCs
have just a couple of dice of HP, unlike adventurer/hero and bad guy types.
This fits in very well with the cinematic style of campaign I like.

J.

