FGU - a customer speaks
ed
Just in case anyone is wondering if FGU
(http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.com/) are delivering their orders I
got a load of stuff from them today, including Space Opera, Sword
Bearer, Archworld and Sorceror's Cave.
Granted it took 6 weeks surface from the US to the UK, but it did get
here.
I wonder what this will do to prices on Ebay?
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
[The Real] Warwick Hunt
>> Hi folks
>>
>> Just in case anyone is wondering if FGU
>> (http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.com/) are delivering their orders I
>> got a load of stuff from them today, including Space Opera, Sword
>> Bearer, Archworld and Sorceror's Cave.
>>
>> Granted it took 6 weeks surface from the US to the UK, but it did get
>> here.
>>
>> I wonder what this will do to prices on Ebay?
>>
>> ed
Ace the boys are back in town!
welcome back dudes!!!!
[the real] Warwick Hunt
HELP - I'm being held prisoner in a SIG File factory!!!
Sidhain
everything I ordered.
TS Hartin
> It took me 4 weeks surface mail in the US, so it's not fast, but I got
> everything I ordered.
Heh, it took about 3 weeks to get everything I ordered and I live in
Canada. ;-) I have to say the books looked great. I'll be ordering stuff
again (I still want to get Space Opera & Bushido - for starters ;p).
Cheers,
Tim
http://redrival.com/dclegends/v_and_v/
Brett Slocum
>Hi folks
>
>Just in case anyone is wondering if FGU
>(http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.com/) are delivering their orders I
>got a load of stuff from them today, including Space Opera, Sword
>Bearer, Archworld and Sorceror's Cave.
>
>Granted it took 6 weeks surface from the US to the UK, but it did get
>here.
>
>I wonder what this will do to prices on Ebay?
Not much, I would think, since most of this stuff doesn't pull a huge premium.
In My Experience, anyway.
---
Brett Slocum <slo...@skypoint.com> - ICQ #13032903
http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/
GURPS: http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/gurps/
Tekumel: http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/tekumel/
Palindrome
wrote:
>Sidhain wrote:
>(I still want to get Space Opera & Bushido - for starters ;p)
All Hail to the Mighty Space Opera and Bushido!! Games to inspire the
ROLE player and send Munchkins scurrying away in terror!
Oh, and "All Hail" to the Mighty FGU as well :)
Palindrome
TC
<palin...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:39:13 -0500, TS Hartin <har...@sprint.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Sidhain wrote:
>>(I still want to get Space Opera & Bushido - for starters ;p)
>
>All Hail to the Mighty Space Opera and Bushido!! Games to inspire the
>ROLE player and send Munchkins scurrying away in terror!
I haven't played Bushido, but I enjoyed Space Opera when I played it,
but I disagree with your statement that it will "send Munchkins
scurrying away in terror!". SO can be number-crunched, just like any
other system. Munchkinism has far more to do with the attitude of
players and GMs that it does with any game system.
TC
Sidhain
"Palindrome" <palin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:799d3tc4mh2pvu09a...@4ax.com...
I didn't say that, you miss snipped...although I do want those games and Psi
World )another copy mines looking a little ragged)
John Carney
slo...@skypoint.com (Brett Slocum) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:32:36 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> >Hi folks
> >
> >Just in case anyone is wondering if FGU
> >(http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.com/) are delivering their orders I
> >got a load of stuff from them today, including Space Opera, Sword
> >Bearer, Archworld and Sorceror's Cave.
> >
> >Granted it took 6 weeks surface from the US to the UK, but it did get
> >here.
> >
> >I wonder what this will do to prices on Ebay?
>
> Not much, I would think, since most of this stuff doesn't pull a huge
premium.
> In My Experience, anyway.
There's also a bit of an "eedjit" factor on eBay. I've seen AD&D stuff
that's still in print go for RRP or higher - and then they have to pay
shipping on top of that. People do tend to get carried away.
--
John Carney,
john....@pacific.net.au
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steve Pettifer
Space Opera
You can grow a beard rolling up a character
and watch it grow some more during a combat
I have fond memories of just shaking my head at this game
[The Real] Warwick Hunt
The fiddly, lengthy rules systems from the old FGU games were one of the things
i liked about them.
I liked to spend hours on creating a character - and still do with a lot of the
FGU games of old, Bushido-still the best oriental game IMHO, Space Opera (and
me mates "advanced S.O." add on, Freedom Fighters - now theres a challenge
for people to role a character quickly hehe, and Chivalry & Sorcery (f.g.u.
ed.) - the Magic User class which has to be the most complicated I have seen to
create a character for, and yet I love it!
The longer time it takes to create a character, for me anyway , generally makes
me feel more attached to the character than say a 5 minute wonder character for
"lesser" games. I like to create detailed backgrounds, and these are usually
helped by some of fgu's systems being so fiddly.
These days it seems though, the 5 minute wonder characters are more common -
"its not the system thats important but the characters and the way the game is
played" etc. That is to some extent true, but when a bunch of fgu'ers get to
together, and they know the system well, a great time is had be all.
The best game playing and g.m.'ing memories are from the old days of fgu games.
That is not to say that there are no "good" systems out there now, but of
recent years no system has "grabbed me" like the fgu games.
Backgrounds on the other hand-well I liked the original Vampire the Masquerade
background, until they polluted it with were wolves, wraiths and mages etc. Of
course If I run Vampire at any time I will just miss those elements out.
The game Blue Planet has a wonderful setting for the game, and I urge any good
sf role player to take a look at it.
I also loved the Harn world setting - although i did not care too much for the
Harn Master system itself.
When FGU vanished it was a sad day for our gaming club and a lot of the
regulars that once haunted & worked at Newcastle Games Workshop.
Glad they are back.
[the real] Warwick Hunt
PS
the problem is i aint got a bloody credit card so i cant buy anything from them
oh well.
Andy Warner
few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
currently stock it.
Andy
"ed" <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nm3a3t0arbvm2v6tu...@4ax.com...
Steve Pettifer
What is Blue Planet about?
As for the character creation thing, it seemed to me in Space Opera that most of
the time was taken up with "system" stuff, number crunching et al, rather than
giving depth to the characters.
I must admit I did enjoy the in depth character creation for traveller, where they
could get medals on dangerous duty, get injured and even die before they were
rolled up. There was also a chance to be a coward or a crimanl and end the
creation process with a dishonourable discharge and wanted by the authorities. I
always saw it as character depth, not endless calculation of modifiers.
Michael T. Richter
news:3A3781D2...@sbirmc.ac.uk...
> What is Blue Planet about?
In the first edition it was about how evil corporations destroyed the world
until a benevolent world dictatorship saved us from ourselves. Oh, and
there was this water planet with some stuff useful for immortality which the
evil corporations wanted to rape but which the world dictatorship is
protecting. Or something like that.
I understand the strident politics got reduced in the second edition,
however.
ed
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:07:29 -0000:
>www.legendgames.co.uk may be worth a try, we are still growing, and can have a
>few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
>currently stock it.
>Andy
But the point is that FGU are still out there, printing old stock and
shipping.
Unless you are getting FGU stock yourselves what is the advantage of
contacting yourself? Do you have a large stock of second-hand FGU?
Certic
TC <t...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a38d1bd....@news.zip.com.au...
But that's it, you see - in SO *all* the PCs are Munchkins!
--
You are not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
***
Give a man a fish and it'll feed him for a day.
Teach him to fish and he'll sit in a boat and
drink beer.
Certic
...and let's not forget two pages of rules on throwing and catching things.
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>
>Steve Pettifer <ste...@sbirmc.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3A37376B...@sbirmc.ac.uk...
>> Palindrome wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:39:13 -0500, TS Hartin <har...@sprint.ca>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Sidhain wrote:
>> > >(I still want to get Space Opera & Bushido - for starters ;p)
>> >
>> > All Hail to the Mighty Space Opera and Bushido!! Games to inspire the
>> > ROLE player and send Munchkins scurrying away in terror!
>> >
>> > Oh, and "All Hail" to the Mighty FGU as well :)
>> >
>> > Palindrome
>>
>> Space Opera
>> You can grow a beard rolling up a character
>> and watch it grow some more during a combat
>>
>> I have fond memories of just shaking my head at this game
>---------
>...and let's not forget two pages of rules on throwing and catching things.
come now - i think you are all forgetting the best example of FGU -
was of course Aftermath - boy was that a maths exercise in disguise -
strangely enough i really enjoyed it though :-)
-----------------------------
DC
Rupert Boleyn
<dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>come now - i think you are all forgetting the best example of FGU -
>was of course Aftermath - boy was that a maths exercise in disguise -
>strangely enough i really enjoyed it though :-)
Ah, a wonderful game. It always amused me how all these people go on
about how it was so slow to play that it was unplayable, but we found
no such problems. All that Aftermath required was players willing to
actually learn the rules, which has always seemed to me to ne a
perfectly reasonable requirement.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Dwayne Carnachan
Boleyn) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:52:15 +1300, Dwayne Carnachan
><dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>come now - i think you are all forgetting the best example of FGU -
>>was of course Aftermath - boy was that a maths exercise in disguise -
>>strangely enough i really enjoyed it though :-)
>
>Ah, a wonderful game. It always amused me how all these people go on
>about how it was so slow to play that it was unplayable, but we found
>no such problems. All that Aftermath required was players willing to
>actually learn the rules, which has always seemed to me to ne a
>perfectly reasonable requirement.
oh for us - playing it wasn't hard - it was the surviving bit that was
the hard part! :-)
-----------------------------
DC
Phillip McGregor
wrote:
>The noble "Andy Warner" <an...@solis-media.co.uk> spake on the day of
>Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:07:29 -0000:
>
>>www.legendgames.co.uk may be worth a try, we are still growing, and can have a
>>few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
>>currently stock it.
>>Andy
>
>But the point is that FGU are still out there, printing old stock and
>shipping.
No. FGU is NOT printing ANYTHING these days. It is all old stock.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU), Rigger Black Book (FASA), Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: asp...@pacific.net.au
ed
Dec 2000 19:29:19 -0000:
>> Space Opera
>> You can grow a beard rolling up a character
>> and watch it grow some more during a combat
>>
>> I have fond memories of just shaking my head at this game
>---------
>...and let's not forget two pages of rules on throwing and catching things.
Very useful if reenacting the sports scene at the start oif the Starship
Troopers film
TC
wrote:
>
>TC <t...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3a38d1bd....@news.zip.com.au...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:24:40 +0000, Palindrome
>> <palin...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:39:13 -0500, TS Hartin <har...@sprint.ca>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Sidhain wrote:
>> >>(I still want to get Space Opera & Bushido - for starters ;p)
>> >
>> >All Hail to the Mighty Space Opera and Bushido!! Games to inspire the
>> >ROLE player and send Munchkins scurrying away in terror!
>>
>> I haven't played Bushido, but I enjoyed Space Opera when I played it,
>> but I disagree with your statement that it will "send Munchkins
>> scurrying away in terror!". SO can be number-crunched, just like any
>> other system. Munchkinism has far more to do with the attitude of
>> players and GMs that it does with any game system.
>--------
>But that's it, you see - in SO *all* the PCs are Munchkins!
LOL! Yes, I guess you could look at it that way.
TC
[The Real] Warwick Hunt
Actually in our rpg club the munchkins mostly played:
ad&d with 20th level+ characters
Marvel Super Heroes
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
but fgu games were too complicated for munchkins-thats what Palindrome meant.
Real men played fgu games.
Brett Slocum
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:52:15 +1300, Dwayne Carnachan
><dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>come now - i think you are all forgetting the best example of FGU -
>>was of course Aftermath - boy was that a maths exercise in disguise -
>>strangely enough i really enjoyed it though :-)
>
>Ah, a wonderful game. It always amused me how all these people go on
>about how it was so slow to play that it was unplayable, but we found
>no such problems. All that Aftermath required was players willing to
>actually learn the rules, which has always seemed to me to ne a
>perfectly reasonable requirement.
Well, I learned the rules and hated them. But what I disliked was the time it
took to create a character. Since everything was interdependent, you were often
in a situation where changing one thing required changed six other things, and
at least one of those things made you change a couple others. After my 6th
character took 2+ hours to generate, I decided this was too much work. And I was
used to C&S1.
Brett Slocum
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:46:32 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>The noble "Andy Warner" <an...@solis-media.co.uk> spake on the day of
>>Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:07:29 -0000:
>>
>>>www.legendgames.co.uk may be worth a try, we are still growing, and can have a
>>>few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
>>>currently stock it.
>>>Andy
>>
>>But the point is that FGU are still out there, printing old stock and
>>shipping.
>
>No. FGU is NOT printing ANYTHING these days. It is all old stock.
In this you are wrong. The Space Opera books were combined into a single volume
in the release FGU put out a couple years ago. If you are calling that old
stock, well, I guess we have differing ideas on the subject.
Phillip McGregor
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:24:01 GMT, asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:46:32 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The noble "Andy Warner" <an...@solis-media.co.uk> spake on the day of
>>>Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:07:29 -0000:
>>>
>>>>www.legendgames.co.uk may be worth a try, we are still growing, and can have a
>>>>few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
>>>>currently stock it.
>>>>Andy
>>>
>>>But the point is that FGU are still out there, printing old stock and
>>>shipping.
>>
>>No. FGU is NOT printing ANYTHING these days. It is all old stock.
>
>In this you are wrong. The Space Opera books were combined into a single volume
>in the release FGU put out a couple years ago. If you are calling that old
>stock, well, I guess we have differing ideas on the subject.
Nope. FGU are not printing anything THESE DAYS. Space Opera was
reprinted without permission of the authors and when, arguably, the
rights to it had already reverted *to* the authors.
It, and the somewhat earlier reprinting of Bushido seem to have been
done more for strategic legal reasons ... to prevent the owners of the
games from taking the rights back. This is what happened *for sure* in
the case of SO (look at my .sig, I have reason to know, good reason)
and I am almost 100% sure that it is what happened in the case of
Bushido.
It is unlikely that, unless some other product that seems like it may
be worth money is in the process of being reprinted by someone else,
that FGU will print anything *again*.
And, technically speaking, even in the case of Space Opera and
Bushido, they were mere facsimile reprints, not new stuff.
Now, based on my last Royalty cheque for Space Opera (and they're six
months or more overdue on the next one), they sold US$100 worth of
product (approximately) ... the main rulebooks ... in 6 months in
1999. That's five copies of the game.
And that has been about standard since the reprint. So, unless FGU
thinks there's a golden egg in doing stuff, they don't have the cash
flow to do anything.
Of course, in a sense, I hope they sell them all and pay me lots of
royalties. Reality is its unlikely to happen.
Palindrome
>Actually in our rpg club the munchkins mostly played:
>
>ad&d with 20th level+ characters
>
>Marvel Super Heroes
>
>Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
>
>
>but fgu games were too complicated for munchkins-thats what Palindrome meant.
>
>Real men played fgu games.
Exactly ;)
Palindrome
ed
Dec 2000 07:13:20 GMT:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:24:01 GMT, asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:46:32 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The noble "Andy Warner" <an...@solis-media.co.uk> spake on the day of
>>>Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:07:29 -0000:
>>>
>>>>www.legendgames.co.uk may be worth a try, we are still growing, and can have a
>>>>few stock problems, but we will try to get what you need, even if we dont
>>>>currently stock it.
>>>>Andy
>>>
>>>But the point is that FGU are still out there, printing old stock and
>>>shipping.
>>
>>No. FGU is NOT printing ANYTHING these days. It is all old stock.
>
>In this you are wrong. The Space Opera books were combined into a single volume
>in the release FGU put out a couple years ago. If you are calling that old
>stock, well, I guess we have differing ideas on the subject.
>
Brett, It is nothing new, it is the old material, unchanged even unto
the page numbering system, so that one volume set has the same typos and
duplicates numbers as it goes through one volume then the other.
There is no new material, whatsoever, Scott Bizar is doing nothing with
his "properties"
Brett Slocum
wrote:
>Nope. FGU are not printing anything THESE DAYS. Space Opera was
>reprinted without permission of the authors and when, arguably, the
>rights to it had already reverted *to* the authors.
This is the reprint I'm talking about. A reprint that comes out a few years ago
is much different than selling off stock from the mid 80s, which seemed to be
what you were saying. No, FGU isn't printing anything this year.
>It, and the somewhat earlier reprinting of Bushido seem to have been
>done more for strategic legal reasons ... to prevent the owners of the
>games from taking the rights back. This is what happened *for sure* in
>the case of SO (look at my .sig, I have reason to know, good reason)
>and I am almost 100% sure that it is what happened in the case of
>Bushido.
Oh, I'm well aware of the why. I was one of the people who was going to help
playtest the Bushido new edition, and then got the news that they were going to
write a new game, because of FGU's actions.
>It is unlikely that, unless some other product that seems like it may
>be worth money is in the process of being reprinted by someone else,
>that FGU will print anything *again*.
I agree.
>And, technically speaking, even in the case of Space Opera and
>Bushido, they were mere facsimile reprints, not new stuff.
Yup, same old typos. Nothing new but the form of the book (single perfect bound
volume instead of 2 staple bound volumes).
>Now, based on my last Royalty cheque for Space Opera (and they're six
>months or more overdue on the next one), they sold US$100 worth of
>product (approximately) ... the main rulebooks ... in 6 months in
>1999. That's five copies of the game.
That seems really off. Didn't they sell any of these to distributors? I've seen
them in at least 2 game stores in Minneapolis, and I know at least one of those
stores almost certainly bought from a distributor. Not that anyone actually
bought a copy from the store. Maybe I'll go in and pick up copies of both
Bushido and Space Opera, just the prove that they can sell a couple books. And
this way authors should still get royalties (theoretically), though less money
actually goes to FGU.
BTW, I didn't recognize your name. I apologize for telling you stuff you already
knew. I just had a different interpretation of your statement than you intended.
ed
Dec 2000 19:34:20 GMT:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:11:30 GMT, asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor)
>wrote:
>
>>Nope. FGU are not printing anything THESE DAYS. Space Opera was
>>reprinted without permission of the authors and when, arguably, the
>>rights to it had already reverted *to* the authors.
>
>This is the reprint I'm talking about. A reprint that comes out a few years ago
>is much different than selling off stock from the mid 80s, which seemed to be
>what you were saying. No, FGU isn't printing anything this year.
Some of the stock FGU has still has Roslyn NY as their location, some
has Gilbert AZ, their current location.
Brett, you are overly nit-picking
TC
<warwi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip, snip>
>Actually in our rpg club the munchkins mostly played:
>
>ad&d with 20th level+ characters
>
>Marvel Super Heroes
>
>Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
>
>
>but fgu games were too complicated for munchkins-thats what Palindrome meant.
>
>Real men played fgu games.
LOL! That's if you assume that mnckism is strictly limited to younger
gamers - I know a few gamers who are still munckins at an age where
rule systems aren't too complicated.
TC
Brett Slocum
>The noble slo...@skypoint.com (Brett Slocum) spake on the day of Thu, 14
>Dec 2000 19:34:20 GMT:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:11:30 GMT, asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. FGU are not printing anything THESE DAYS. Space Opera was
>>>reprinted without permission of the authors and when, arguably, the
>>>rights to it had already reverted *to* the authors.
>>
>>This is the reprint I'm talking about. A reprint that comes out a few years ago
>>is much different than selling off stock from the mid 80s, which seemed to be
>>what you were saying. No, FGU isn't printing anything this year.
>
>Some of the stock FGU has still has Roslyn NY as their location, some
>has Gilbert AZ, their current location.
>
>
>Brett, you are overly nit-picking
I think its more a misunderstanding of the meaning of the poster. Not picking
nits.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Well, I learned the rules and hated them. But what I disliked was the time it
>took to create a character. Since everything was interdependent, you were often
>in a situation where changing one thing required changed six other things, and
>at least one of those things made you change a couple others. After my 6th
>character took 2+ hours to generate, I decided this was too much work. And I was
>used to C&S1.
Never had this problem. I rather liked the interalationship, as it
meant that you could have two characters that were similar but
different, if you know what I mean. Besides it scared the munchkins
away.
Louise Hayes
[The Real] Warwick Hunt wrote in message ...<<SNIP>>
>
>The fiddly, lengthy rules systems from the old FGU games were one of
the things
>i liked about them.
>
>I liked to spend hours on creating a character - and still do with a
lot of the
>FGU games of old, Bushido-still the best oriental game IMHO, Space
Opera (and
>me mates "advanced S.O." add on, Freedom Fighters - now theres a
challenge
>for people to role a character quickly hehe, and Chivalry & Sorcery
(f.g.u.
>ed.) - the Magic User class which has to be the most complicated I have
seen to
>create a character for, and yet I love it!
>
there were a certain set of tables missing from my copy. It certainly
was intricate though...
Daredevils was fun though and one of the better attempts to do a
pulp-action RPG.
In the main we stuck to FGU's more simple games, such as Year of the
Phoenix and PsiWorld, which was the best RPG on psionics until the GURPS
supplement came along.
--
Pookie (Poo...@banshee-lair.freeserve.co.uk)
"Don't take your pineal gland for granted. Pamper it! Essential Oils!
Rubdowns! It could save your ass someday."
- Tlg'manh, Unspeakable Oath 14/15
See http://www.chorazin.org.uk/pookie/ for GURPS: Jorune, Luther
Arkwright, 2300AD, Rally Cry!, Strikeforce Morituri, Xenozoic Tales &
Black Kiss
TS Hartin
> <some snippage>
>
> Daredevils was fun though and one of the better attempts to do a
> pulp-action RPG.
I've been thinking of ordering this game, but I know next to nothing about
it except it is a pulp-action rpg. ;-) Can anyone fill me in on the basic
details (i.e. game mechanics/character generation/etc. ;p)? Why is
Daredevils a better attempt at a pulp-action RPG? I'm just curious... I
can't help that I'm a huge fan of the pulps/serials. :-)
Cheers,
Tim
http://redrival.com/dclegends/v_and_v/
Phillip McGregor
wrote:
>Louise Hayes wrote:
>
>> <some snippage>
>>
>> Daredevils was fun though and one of the better attempts to do a
>> pulp-action RPG.
>
>I've been thinking of ordering this game, but I know next to nothing about
>it except it is a pulp-action rpg. ;-) Can anyone fill me in on the basic
>details (i.e. game mechanics/character generation/etc. ;p)? Why is
>Daredevils a better attempt at a pulp-action RPG? I'm just curious... I
>can't help that I'm a huge fan of the pulps/serials. :-)
Its basically the "Aftermath" game system. Its reasonably neat (as in
"good")
Certic
Phillip McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:3a3ff199...@news.pacific.net.au...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:00:43 -0500, TS Hartin <har...@sprint.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Louise Hayes wrote:
> >
> >> <some snippage>
> >>
> >> Daredevils was fun though and one of the better attempts to do a
> >> pulp-action RPG.
> >
> >I've been thinking of ordering this game, but I know next to nothing
about
> >it except it is a pulp-action rpg. ;-) Can anyone fill me in on the basic
> >details (i.e. game mechanics/character generation/etc. ;p)? Why is
> >Daredevils a better attempt at a pulp-action RPG? I'm just curious... I
> >can't help that I'm a huge fan of the pulps/serials. :-)
>
> Its basically the "Aftermath" game system. Its reasonably neat (as in
> "good")
Aftermath was a good, though not easy, game system. The only major gripe
with it is that getting shot in the foot is as likely to kill you as getting
shot in the brain.
Sidhain
> > "good")
> --------
> Aftermath was a good, though not easy, game system. The only major gripe
> with it is that getting shot in the foot is as likely to kill you as getting
> shot in the brain.
>
> --
Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
Since I've known people who've taken shotgun -slugs- to the head and survived,
and read about people who've been shot in the foot and died.
Michael T. Richter
news:S5P%5.5419$l2.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Aftermath was a good, though not easy, game system. The only major
>> gripe with it is that getting shot in the foot is as likely to kill
>> you as getting shot in the brain.
> Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
Actually it isn't.
> Since I've known people who've taken shotgun -slugs- to the head and
> survived, and read about people who've been shot in the foot and died.
In what proportions? How many people get shot in the head and die vs.
survive? How many people get shot in the foot and die vs. survive? I would
wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near equal. In
Aftermath they are identical because the hit location system only determines
armour protection, not extra effects.
Back when I played Aftermath I modified the hit location somewhat based upon
some work with Phoenix Command. Basically I had it that general regions of
the body gave certain specific bonuses and penalties -- both to the actual
damage and to side-effects of damage -- when hit. It was a simple bolt-on
attachment that rendered the game only a little bit less playable. :-)
Deathdog The Assassin
>
>Back when I played Aftermath I modified the hit location somewhat based upon
>some work with Phoenix Command. Basically I had it that general regions of
>the body gave certain specific bonuses and penalties -- both to the actual
>damage and to side-effects of damage -- when hit. It was a simple bolt-on
>attachment that rendered the game only a little bit less playable. :-)
You actually understood Phoenix Command?
I'm impressed...seriously.
--
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.deathdog.com, http://www.cyberjackass.com
"94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest
hang out around here."
Sidhain
>
> Actually it isn't.
>
Yes it is Michael. Whether you want to regard it as so or not as you are often
want to do with reality, but the real world damage isn't a bunch of points you
can chalk on a board somewhere, it involves things like trauma and shock. Many
many people die from shock. From relatively minor wounds on a mass to
tissue/damage ratio.
> > Since I've known people who've taken shotgun -slugs- to the head and
> > survived, and read about people who've been shot in the foot and died.
>
> In what proportions? How many people get shot in the head and die vs.
> survive?
Enough to provide a statistical basis for Aftermath's system if you wanted one.
It's a really small number overall, but larger than you think.
I would
> wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near equal.
No, but they don't have to be equal for Aftermath to make sense damage wise.
In
> Aftermath they are identical because the hit location system only determines
> armour protection, not extra effects.
>
Yes well it's been ages since I read /used Aftermath and don't remember exactly
how it worked, but do all locations come up equally as often.
> Back when I played Aftermath I modified the hit location somewhat based upon
> some work with Phoenix Command. Basically I had it that general regions of
> the body gave certain specific bonuses and penalties -- both to the actual
> damage and to side-effects of damage -- when hit. It was a simple bolt-on
> attachment that rendered the game only a little bit less playable. :-)
Ah so you were playing Stalking the Night Fantastic, or one of it's cousins,
which included secondary damage from bone fragments, and wound angle
determination of damage?
For a -game- there is only so much realism one can want.
Tell ya what Michael, you want to volunteer for a test subject to determine how
"realistic" damage is?
Michael T. Richter
news:slrn93vgvp....@fnord.io.com...
> You actually understood Phoenix Command?
> I'm impressed...seriously.
Well, I started off with Phoenix Command Lite (a.k.a. Living Steel) and
moved on to Rhand: Morningstar Missions. After that Phoenix Command, even
with its advanced damage tables, wasn't that hard. I was broken on Sword's
Path: Glory, however. That was a mind-mangling game.
Michael T. Richter
>>> Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
>> Actually it isn't.
> Yes it is Michael.
No it isn't. In Aftermath the odds of being killed by a .308 round in the
hand are equal to the odds of being killed by a .308 round in the head.
This is plainly unrealistic. You even admit this yourself later on:
>> I would wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near
>> equal.
> No, but they don't have to be equal for Aftermath to make sense damage
wise.
Yes they do, in fact. In Aftermath the proportions are exactly the same.
In reality they are nowhere near the same. Do the (trivial) analysis
required here. It's not that difficult. (Hint: the conclusion is that
Aftermath's hit location system doesn't match reality in the slightest.)
>> In Aftermath they are identical because the hit location system only
>> determines armour protection, not extra effects.
> Yes well it's been ages since I read /used Aftermath and don't remember
exactly
> how it worked, but do all locations come up equally as often.
Nice redirect, but it still doesn't dodge the point unfortunately. The
problem in Aftermath isn't the hit distribution. It is that there is no
differentiation between hit locations once the bullet enters. A hit to the
head has precisely the same effect as a hit to the hand, the groin or the
foot. This is unrealistic.
>> Back when I played Aftermath I modified the hit location somewhat based
>> upon some work with Phoenix Command. Basically I had it that general
>> regions of the body gave certain specific bonuses and penalties -- both
>> to the actual damage and to side-effects of damage -- when hit. It was
>> a simple bolt-on attachment that rendered the game only a little bit less
>> playable. :-)
> Ah so you were playing Stalking the Night Fantastic, or one of it's
cousins,
> which included secondary damage from bone fragments, and wound angle
> determination of damage?
No. Can't you read? I named both Aftermath and Phoenix Command. Neither
of these is Stalking[...] or Fringeworthy or FTL:2448 or the like.
I played Aftermath. I wrote a bolt-on attachment inspired by Phoenix
Command. In this I added some general modifiers for hits to certain regions
of the body. Really, all the information I just repeated was in the
original paragraph without any tricksy attempts to conceal it.
> For a -game- there is only so much realism one can want.
Yes. That's why I didn't play the Tri-Tac games. (Well, that and the fact
that the games were literally unplayable as published.)
> Tell ya what Michael, you want to volunteer for a test subject to
determine
> how "realistic" damage is?
Why would I need to? The information is readily available based on assorted
studies at ERs, through the FBI, through military studies, etc. It isn't as
if this is difficult to find.
Sidhain
> > Yes it is Michael.
>
> No it isn't. In Aftermath the odds of being killed by a .308 round in the
> hand are equal to the odds of being killed by a .308 round in the head.
> This is plainly unrealistic. You even admit this yourself later on:
>
> >> I would wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near
> >> equal.
>
> > No, but they don't have to be equal for Aftermath to make sense damage
> wise.
>
> Yes they do, in fact. In Aftermath the proportions are exactly the same.
> In reality they are nowhere near the same. Do the (trivial) analysis
> required here. It's not that difficult. (Hint: the conclusion is that
> Aftermath's hit location system doesn't match reality in the slightest.)
>
I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change that
someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting shot
in the head--it's a craps shoot Michael in the real world, who you'd expect
survive serious wounds die, those you don't think will often survive, it doesn't
make sense and doesn't really have a rhyme or reason to why the same amount of
damage on two people with similar backgrounds/health issues etc can leave one
alive and only minorly inconvenciend and kill another.
> >> In Aftermath they are identical because the hit location system only
> >> determines armour protection, not extra effects.
>
> > Yes well it's been ages since I read /used Aftermath and don't remember
> exactly
> > how it worked, but do all locations come up equally as often.
>
> Nice redirect, but it still doesn't dodge the point unfortunately. The
> problem in Aftermath isn't the hit distribution. It is that there is no
> differentiation between hit locations once the bullet enters. A hit to the
> head has precisely the same effect as a hit to the hand, the groin or the
> foot. This is unrealistic.
Not really.
I've seen pages of stats for people having died from a a hand wound or a foot
wound or an arm wound or a leg wound from relatively large caliber weapons.
I feel also have read similar reports about survivors of similar wounds.
> > Ah so you were playing Stalking the Night Fantastic, or one of it's
> cousins,
> > which included secondary damage from bone fragments, and wound angle
> > determination of damage?
>
> No. Can't you read? I named both Aftermath and Phoenix Command. Neither
> of these is Stalking[...] or Fringeworthy or FTL:2448 or the like.
>
Yes and your system sounds like a hacked together version of STNF, FW, or
FTL.....
> > Tell ya what Michael, you want to volunteer for a test subject to
> determine
> > how "realistic" damage is?
>
> Why would I need to? The information is readily available based on assorted
> studies at ERs, through the FBI, through military studies, etc. It isn't as
> if this is difficult to find.
>
>
Yes and I've read some of those Michael, it's what I'm basing my belief that
it's equally probable for someone to die from wounds caused by firearms to so
called "non vital" areas, as to survive. You have really no way of knowing
because DAMAGE in any game system is merely an fudge for real world things NONE
of us understand.
Even Doctors and so called specialists don't know why sometimes people die from
injuries that are considered minor.
Michael T. Richter
> I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change
that
> someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
shot
> in the head--
It is not "as probable". That's the whole point. If a thousand people shot
in the foot survive to every three, say, that die, that is very different
probabilities form say 3 survivals to 1500 deaths in shots to the head.
(Before you start, yes I pulled the numbers out of thin air. I'm
illustrating a point about probability, not about factual data concerning
gunshot wounds.)
> it's a craps shoot Michael in the real world,
If you think that the odds of rolling a 7 and a 2 are the same in craps, may
I suggest that you stay far, far away from Vegas.
>> No. Can't you read? I named both Aftermath and Phoenix Command.
Neither
>> of these is Stalking[...] or Fringeworthy or FTL:2448 or the like.
> Yes and your system sounds like a hacked together version of STNF, FW, or
> FTL.....
Since I didn't describe that system at all other than identifying one of its
constituent components, I see that you leap to conclusions about as easily
as you fly off the handle.
> Yes and I've read some of those Michael, it's what I'm basing my belief
that
> it's equally probable for someone to die from wounds caused by firearms to
so
> called "non vital" areas, as to survive.
And your "equally probable" line is total bullshit. It displays a gross
ignorance of even the fundamentals of probability.
I won't bother reading anything else you have to say on this matter. You're
ignorant and perversely proud of it. You can believe whatever you like.
Rupert Boleyn
I found Phoenix Command to be interesting, but excessive. I considered
bolting it onto Aftermath, but the game died before I got around to
it.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>> > Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
>>
>> Actually it isn't.
>>
>
>Yes it is Michael. Whether you want to regard it as so or not as you are often
>want to do with reality, but the real world damage isn't a bunch of points you
>can chalk on a board somewhere, it involves things like trauma and shock. Many
>many people die from shock. From relatively minor wounds on a mass to
>tissue/damage ratio.
However a good deal lower proportion of those wounded in this way die
from this than die from head wounds.
>
>> > Since I've known people who've taken shotgun -slugs- to the head and
>> > survived, and read about people who've been shot in the foot and died.
>>
>> In what proportions? How many people get shot in the head and die vs.
>> survive?
>
>Enough to provide a statistical basis for Aftermath's system if you wanted one.
Aftermath says that, aside from a fairly rare critical effect, there's
the same chance of dying from a bullet to the foot as the head, and
that's just not true. It also has an ablative hit point system, and
this isn't realistic, either.
>It's a really small number overall, but larger than you think.
>
> I would
>> wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near equal.
>
>No, but they don't have to be equal for Aftermath to make sense damage wise.
>
>
> In
>> Aftermath they are identical because the hit location system only determines
>> armour protection, not extra effects.
>>
>
>Yes well it's been ages since I read /used Aftermath and don't remember exactly
>how it worked, but do all locations come up equally as often.
Yes, within a percentile point or so, anyway.
lizard
>
> "Deathdog The Assassin" <deat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn93vgvp....@fnord.io.com...
> > You actually understood Phoenix Command?
> > I'm impressed...seriously.
>
> Well, I started off with Phoenix Command Lite (a.k.a. Living Steel)
Lite??? LITE????? Living Steel was *anything* LITE????
Riiiiiight.
Pull ye the other one, for it has gotte bells onn.
Marcus L. Rowland
Sidhain <sid...@earthlink.net> writes
> damage isn't a bunch of points you
>can chalk on a board somewhere, it involves things like trauma and shock. Many
>many people die from shock. From relatively minor wounds on a mass to
>tissue/damage ratio.
Don't forget bleeding to death - lots of arteries and veins in your foot
- and gangrene etc.
--
Marcus L. Rowland
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/ http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
"We are all victims of this slime. They... ...fill our mailboxes with gibberish
that would get them indicted if people had time to press charges"
[Hunter S. Thompson predicts junk e-mail, 1985 (from Generation of Swine)]
Palindrome
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>"Sidhain" <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:S5P%5.5419$l2.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>> Aftermath was a good, though not easy, game system. The only major
>>> gripe with it is that getting shot in the foot is as likely to kill
>>> you as getting shot in the brain.
>
>> Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
>
>Actually it isn't.
It depends on the calibre of the round used and the type of wound,
naturally. I know of a Vietnam 'copter pilot (read the factual
account in "Chickenhawk") shot through his helmet, with an entry hole
in one side of his helmet, and an exit wound in the other. Blood
absolutely poured out! Dead, though??
Actually, he woke up a few minutes afterwards, although no-one dared
to take his helmet off and look inside until they got back to base!!
The bullet had been deflected upwards by his helmet on the way
through, hit his skull and was deflected upwards again. Then, it
followed the curve of his helmet, before exiting in an identical
manner on the other side. It chewed his scalp up, big time, but he
was patched up easily enough!
So, what WOULD kill someone??? These days, even a grazing shot, due
to the hydrostatic shock from a high-velocity round! A "mere" flesh
wound results in almost certain death, because of the 'shock wave' of
the impact being transmitted by the water content of the body. A good
medic, though, could save someone who'd lost a foot and lots of
blood....
You CANNOT paint a picture of FACTUAL damage in a game, unless you use
a very broad brush, so to speak. How about blood-loss and shock,
gangrene, secondary infection?? People die of any or all.
Games are games and will never reflect real life in all its
complexity. My chances of surviving falling into marshy ground from a
moving plane would be very, very poor. "Arnie" does it without a
sprained ankle. My chances of running through broken glass, fist-
fighting two or three experienced toughs and taking a bullet wound or
two would be even worse, but people let that pass almost without
comment in "Die Hard."
Bearing in mind ALL role-playing games are "Heroic Fantasy" (be it
horror, sci-fi, fantasy, etc.) just use good old Suspension of
Disbelief. In more than 20 years of roleplaying, I have heard the
tired old argument about "realistic" damage time after time after time
- leave it to the 'Guns and Ammo' experts to drool over :D It saves
time and bandwidth!
Remember, The Fun Is Out There!!!
Palindrome
Terry Austin
> >
> > > Yes it is Michael.
> >
> > No it isn't. In Aftermath the odds of being killed by a .308 round in
the
> > hand are equal to the odds of being killed by a .308 round in the head.
> > This is plainly unrealistic. You even admit this yourself later on:
> >
> > >> I would wager a year's salary that these proportions are nowhere near
> > >> equal.
> >
> > > No, but they don't have to be equal for Aftermath to make sense damage
> > wise.
> >
> > Yes they do, in fact. In Aftermath the proportions are exactly the
same.
> > In reality they are nowhere near the same. Do the (trivial) analysis
> > required here. It's not that difficult. (Hint: the conclusion is that
> > Aftermath's hit location system doesn't match reality in the slightest.)
> >
>
> I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change
that
> someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
shot
> in the head
You're an idiot.
Terry Austin
Louise Hayes
Phillip McGregor wrote in message
<3a3ff199...@news.pacific.net.au>...
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:00:43 -0500, TS Hartin <har...@sprint.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Louise Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> <some snippage>
>>>
>>> Daredevils was fun though and one of the better attempts to do a
>>> pulp-action RPG.
>>
>>I've been thinking of ordering this game, but I know next to nothing
about
>>it except it is a pulp-action rpg. ;-) Can anyone fill me in on the
basic
>>details (i.e. game mechanics/character generation/etc. ;p)? Why is
>>Daredevils a better attempt at a pulp-action RPG? I'm just curious...
I
>>can't help that I'm a huge fan of the pulps/serials. :-)
>
>Its basically the "Aftermath" game system. Its reasonably neat (as in
>"good")
>
>Phil
>
combat/resolution system, but it really shines in character creation,
providing characters with a lot of background history if you want it.
There are also several books of adventures, which are not too bad
either.
Sidhain
> ignorant and perversely proud of it. You can believe whatever you like.
>
>
No Michael, in this case your the one showing ignorance.
Be glad and hope you don't get shot in the foot.
Mitch Williams
> some work with Phoenix Command.
We still call a groin hit "Area 12" which I believe came from Aftermath's hit
chart.
Mitch
Michael T. Richter
news:3A3FCF25...@mrlizard.com...
>>> You actually understood Phoenix Command?
>>> I'm impressed...seriously.
>> Well, I started off with Phoenix Command Lite (a.k.a. Living Steel)
> Lite??? LITE????? Living Steel was *anything* LITE????
> Riiiiiight.
> Pull ye the other one, for it has gotte bells onn.
Be prepared for a good scare.
Living Steel was the only game from Leading Edge that was playable (of the
ones I tried: I never tried Lawnmower Man or Aliens). The first edition was
a mess, but the second edition was actually quite usable.
Above it in the hierarchy of complexity was a (sort of) fantasy game called
Rhand: Morningstar Missions. It was about as complex as LS1, but with some
added problems caused by melding two slightly incompatible systems: the
melee combat system and the ranged combat system.
Phoenix Command itself -- a sort of skirmish-level wargame/combat system
replacement -- was more complex than even LS1/R:MM and far more complex than
LS2. If you added the advanced damage tables and the melee combat system
things got nasty. (And, IMO, the melee combat system and the ranged combat
systems didn't mesh.)
The *REAL* killer system from Leading Edge, however, was Sword's Path:
Glory. This was simply the most detailed combat system I ever saw in my
life. It makes Tri-Tac's games look rules-light. It made The Morrow
Project look like a kindergarten game.
Sadly, the only games I have left from Leading Edge are Living Steel 2 and
Dragonstar Rising (a tactical wargame in the same setting). I "leaked" away
all my other stuff over the years. (I'm *REALLY* kicking myself for getting
rid of Sword's Path: Glory!) Back when I had Phoenix Command I used to pull
it out when people whined about how complex a game was.
Michael T. Richter
news:3A4019B9...@bellsouth.net...
I still refer to "Location 12" as a euphemism. "She just used her knee to
tag you in Location 12." Nobody I game with gets the reference since my
former Aftermath players are about 2000km away from me right now.
Sidhain
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> Terry Austin
>
>
No Terry but thank you, I mean most games don't bother with hydrostatic shock,
most don't deal with the fact that it isn't the displacement of tissue that
usually kills someone, otherwise it be consistent instead of erratic.
SO if I am an idiot because I understand that in the real world things don't
always work in a very clean and neat and easily quantifiable pattern, then by
gods I'll be an idiot it's better than being delusional.
[The Real] Warwick Hunt
<kantor_r...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > but fgu games were too complicated for munchkins-thats what Palindrome meant.
>> >
>> > Real men played fgu games.
>> >
>>
>> Not sure about that, they published a wide range. Flashing Blades was a
>> smooth, easily learnt, and passionately French Musketeers game.
yeah and you can see munchkins playing blokes in thigh length boots, with poncy
swords, and a big feather in their hats?? Thats not macho enough for a real
munchkin-too effeminate for them.
Ask any adult at any gaming club about munchkins.
Munchkins are a special breed - they crave to be tough n hard, so they have
hard characters. In the right setting of course, the Musketeers were hard, but
in the minds of munchkins, well- could you imagine Arnie, Bruce Willis or Mel
Gibson be a musketeer?
Since most of the munchkins I knew were into the body count, my guns bigger
than yours, im harder than you with my 81st level
fighter/thief/illusionist/cleric with stats of 18-100/18/18/18/18/18, blokes in
all that Dartagnian/Athos/Porthos (spelling??) type of gear -noooooo.
[the real] Warwick Hunt
HELP - I'm being held prisoner in a SIG File factory!!!
David Damerell
>I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change that
>someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
>shot in the head--it's a craps shoot Michael in the real world, who you'd
>expect survive serious wounds die, those you don't think will often survive,
You don't seem to understand the difference between 'there is a lot of
randomness in the results of gunshot wounds' (which is true) and
'therefore, all outcomes are equally likely' (which is a pile of crap.)
People die when shot with .22s or even .177 air rifles. People survive
hits from all sorts of big fucking guns. That doesn't mean that big fast
bullets are no more lethal than small slow ones.
A little Googling reveals;
http://www.amin.org/En/eyejrs/0011/free1_051100.html
'PHR's analysis of fatal gunshot wounds in Gaza reveals that approximately
50% were to the head. This high proportion of fatal head wounds suggests that
given broad rules of engagement, soldiers are specifically aiming at peoples'
heads. Since the beginning of the conflict, of the first 1,134 casualties
reported in West Bank and Gaza Hospitals, 26% were to the head and neck.'
26% of injuries are to the head, but 50% of fatalities are. Head wounds
are more lethal.
http://www.emsmagazine.com/articles/emsarts/priorities.html
'Penetrating injuries to the head, especially gunshot wounds, carry a high
mortality, primarily due to direct brain or brainstem injury, as well as
mass effect and compression of vital centers due to blood or swelling.'
http://salata.mef.hr/CMJ/3804/3804-7.htm - too large to include, but Table
6 shows that of 42 homicides involving single gunshot wounds, all were to
the head, neck and torso; no leg or arm hits are mentioned.
That's enough to be going on with, I think...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
Find advice on news posting style at http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
and http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html - useful to all.
Thom Baguley
> I never once managed to create a character for Freedom Fighters, as
> there were a certain set of tables missing from my copy. It certainly
> was intricate though...
Older characters took a long time and were scarily powerful. One of the
interesting things was the intricate verbal contest resolution. In essence it
worked like combat (exchanging attacks etc.). I can't imagine ever playing it, though.
Thom
Mac
he he its good to see another person with an affection for pheonix command ,
i once wrote a review of all the products I had of theirs, and posted it,
only response I got was from one of the employees. Wanted to get a
discussion going.
I got all mine [including SPG] but lost the mechanized combat system for
tanks DAMNIT. I think one of those sleazy wargaming geeks " privatized " it
at a club GRRrrrrr.... They released supps for ww2 light , medium and heavy
tanks and modern battle tanks and light vehicles. used 20m hexes. I got all
the supps, but lost the damn rules.
Yup SPG was a maze of calculations, the newer hand to hand rules is
basically the same system but you get charts insted of having to do all the
calculations yourself. simplified things heaps. They brought out a sup with
animals in it but didnt have stats for fighting animals with ahnd weapons,
just shooting them :( there went my ideas of using PC as a fantasy combat
system.
All the movie based games used the same sysytem as dragon star rising from
what I can recall. just differnt weapons.
We've had countless battles using the system , I even converted the
solitairre game ambush into PC, boy those m1 carbines sure outclass the bolt
action rifles the germans basic troop got. The most fun we ever had was
hidden movement games with 2 maps and umpire going between them, the " Fog
of war " really hits you . people lying in ditches cowering because theire
teem has taken a hit and they dont know where enemy is . LOL and the system
was SOOOooo. deadly .
Walt Smith
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> You don't seem to understand the difference between 'there is a lot of
> randomness in the results of gunshot wounds' (which is true) and
> 'therefore, all outcomes are equally likely' (which is a pile of
> crap.)
>
> People die when shot with .22s or even .177 air rifles. People survive
> hits from all sorts of big fucking guns. That doesn't mean that big
> fast bullets are no more lethal than small slow ones.
>
> A little Googling reveals;
<snip relevant data points>
As head shots are to people, so should relevant statistics be to
wrongheaded opinions. Thanks David.
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Michael T. Richter
> No Terry but thank you, I mean most games don't bother with hydrostatic
> shock, most don't deal with the fact that it isn't the displacement of
> tissue that usually kills someone, otherwise it be consistent instead
> of erratic.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm (and
http://www.gunnery.net/hwfe.html and several other locations) : "[...] based
on myths such as [...] hydrostatic shock [...]"
lizard
Hey, I do that too! ("Location 12") Ah, High School....
Rupert Boleyn
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>Sadly, the only games I have left from Leading Edge are Living Steel 2 and
>Dragonstar Rising (a tactical wargame in the same setting). I "leaked" away
>all my other stuff over the years. (I'm *REALLY* kicking myself for getting
>rid of Sword's Path: Glory!) Back when I had Phoenix Command I used to pull
>it out when people whined about how complex a game was.
Ah! So I'm not the only person who's done that. Back when I first got
it there was a certain facination with it amongst my friends, and we
did a set of rules to make it an add-on for Aftermath, and we almost
used it. However the group broke up before we tried them, which may
have been fortunate.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
Me too! Me too! And none of my players get the reference either,
though some should :(
Sidhain
> --
No actually its not, after looking at THOUSANDs of statistics covering gunshot
wounds my opinion stands.
I'm not looking at a handful of example and calling that statictically relevant,
like yourself.
And for the record I never said a larger caliber bullet wouldn't be more
dangerous. But one CAN die from injuries to non critical areas and with high
powered weapons it's more likely to kill you know matter where you get shot.
Michael T. Richter
> No actually its not, after looking at THOUSANDs of statistics covering
> gunshot wounds my opinion stands.
Statistics that you make up don't count.
Terry Austin
(And see Richter's link about hydrostatic shock. It's a crock.
You're an idiot.)
Terry Austin
Certic
> > > Its basically the "Aftermath" game system. Its reasonably neat (as in
> > > "good")
> > Aftermath was a good, though not easy, game system. The only major gripe
> > with it is that getting shot in the foot is as likely to kill you as
getting
> > shot in the brain.
> >
> Which is of course a somewhat realistic view.
survived,
----------
I just knew some berk would say this. On that basis, I've heard of people
who've survived falling out of an aeroplane, and others who've been killed
falling out of a 1st floor window, so therefore a 2m fall is as dangerous as
a 2000m fall. Bah.
--
You are not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
***
Give a man a fish and it'll feed him for a day.
Teach him to fish and he'll sit in a boat and
drink beer.
Certic
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:KzX%5.116616$_5.26...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
...and remember it wasn't a full game, just the ranged combat rules.
Certic
>
> >
> > You're an idiot.
> >
> > Terry Austin
> >
> >
>
> No Terry but thank you, I mean most games don't bother with hydrostatic
shock,
> most don't deal with the fact that it isn't the displacement of tissue
that
> usually kills someone, otherwise it be consistent instead of erratic.
*CLANG* If you knew anything about wound ballistics, you'd know that
hydrostatic shock is now proven to be a myth . . . unless you get shot in
the head.
ed
day of Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:39:11 -0000:
>In article <ci7i3tg1ut4he6lnq...@4ax.com>,
>edh...@equus.demon.co.uk says...
>
>> There is no new material, whatsoever, Scott Bizar is doing nothing with
>> his "properties"
>
>No he isn't, but it is factually correct to say that it is NEW stock,
>muchof it reprinted recently.
Yes, but Brett was misunderstanding Phil's obvious intention, which I
expanded upon, before you snipped it.
>I would like him to combine all of Flashing Blades in a single perfect
>bound book, that would be a nice product to put on the shelves.
>
>I don't mind that it's not revised or laid out new or poked with, many
>of those games were well designed and need nothing new.
All well and good, except the designers of those games want to do things
with them and, by Mr. Bizar's actions. can't
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
Certic
Marcus L. Rowland <mrow...@ffutures.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QHNjHDAJ...@ffutures.demon.co.uk...
> In article <swP%5.5476$l2.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Sidhain <sid...@earthlink.net> writes
> > damage isn't a bunch of points you
> >can chalk on a board somewhere, it involves things like trauma and shock.
Many
> >many people die from shock. From relatively minor wounds on a mass to
> >tissue/damage ratio.
>
> Don't forget bleeding to death - lots of arteries and veins in your foot
> - and gangrene etc.
Gangrene and such fall a separate rule in Aftermath.
Certic
Palindrome <palin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hftv3t0iv72pe0mi5...@4ax.com...
Aaargh! Hydrostatic shock is a myth!
Sidhain
> (And see Richter's link about hydrostatic shock. It's a crock.
> You're an idiot.)
>
> Terry Austin
>
>
Nope I'm not want me to get links to refute his?
I can.
But will it change your belief?
No.
We stick to our beliefs no matter how much evidence or counter evidence can be
produced.
Sidhain
"
> > No actually its not, after looking at THOUSANDs of statistics covering
> > gunshot wounds my opinion stands.
>
> Statistics that you make up don't count.
>
Of course not Michael, I'm referring to real world documents
You can get the same documents by writing a few letters to different places..
You know snail mail.
Places with "real and factual" data.
>
Sidhain
> hydrostatic shock is now proven to be a myth . . . unless you get shot in
> the head.
>
Prove it.
Provide enough EVIDENCE to prove it.
Terry Austin
>
> "
> > > No actually its not, after looking at THOUSANDs of statistics covering
> > > gunshot wounds my opinion stands.
> >
> > Statistics that you make up don't count.
> >
>
> Of course not Michael, I'm referring to real world documents
That you do not name in any way, and that conflict with credible
documents that Richter and I have both seen. Hydrostatic shock
is grossly exaggerated in effect by people who do _not_ have
much background in the medical end of gunshot wounds.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
EVIDENCE to prove it.
Fool.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
> >
> > (And see Richter's link about hydrostatic shock. It's a crock.
> > You're an idiot.)
> >
> > Terry Austin
> >
> >
>
> Nope I'm not want me to get links to refute his?
> I can.
You haven't yet. Have you read Richter's link?
>
> But will it change your belief?
> No.
Since you haven't provided any actual evidence
yet, while squealing like a schoolgirl demanding
exactly what you're not providing from Richter,
I see no reason to even bother reading your drivel.
>
> We stick to our beliefs no matter how much evidence or counter evidence
can be
> produced.
>
Good thing you included yourself in that.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
> > That's enough to be going on with, I think...
> > --
>
> No actually its not, after looking at THOUSANDs of statistics covering
gunshot
> wounds my opinion stands.
>
> I'm not looking at a handful of example and calling that statictically
relevant,
> like yourself.
You're an idiot.
>
>
> And for the record I never said a larger caliber bullet wouldn't be more
> dangerous. But one CAN die from injuries to non critical areas and with
high
> powered weapons it's more likely to kill you know matter where you get
shot.
>
Now you're changing your story. You weren't talking
about caliber. You were talking about wound locations.
You claimed, quite specifically, that a wound to the foot
was as likely to kill you as a wound to the head.
Sidhain
> documents that Richter and I have both seen. Hydrostatic shock
Credible documents?
Where?
My documents are credible too, problem is I've got hundreds of different
sources. No one big source I can name.
> is grossly exaggerated in effect by people who do _not_ have
> much background in the medical end of gunshot wounds.
>
Really? You mean ER doctors?
Sidhain
> >
> Now you're changing your story. You weren't talking
> about caliber. You were talking about wound locations.
> You claimed, quite specifically, that a wound to the foot
> was as likely to kill you as a wound to the head.
>
to those I was responding.
Your the idiot in this case Terry.
Sidhain
> >
> Good thing you included yourself in that.
>
> Terry Austin
>
>
>
Yeah Terry at least I'm honest, I know I'm stubborn and hardheaded and admit
that--but it doesn't make me wrong (nor does it make me right).
One link doesn't not sufficient evidence create.
Michael T. Richter
>> That you do not name in any way, and that conflict with credible
>> documents that Richter and I have both seen. Hydrostatic shock
> Credible documents?
I cited a report from the FBI Firearms Training Unit. That report cites 44
additional references. What did you cite again? Oh yeah. "Thousands of
(unreported) statistics" from "hundreds of (uncited) sources". Real
persuasive, that.
TC
wrote:
Why would anyone bother - you've already stated in another post that
evidence won't make you change your belief.
TC
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>
>Sidhain <sid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8j_%5.518$PF.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> >
>> > You're an idiot.
>> >
>> > Terry Austin
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No Terry but thank you, I mean most games don't bother with hydrostatic
>shock,
>> most don't deal with the fact that it isn't the displacement of tissue
>that
>> usually kills someone, otherwise it be consistent instead of erratic.
>--------
>*CLANG* If you knew anything about wound ballistics, you'd know that
>hydrostatic shock is now proven to be a myth . . . unless you get shot in
>the head.
I also works fairly well for splattering one's liver all over the
inside of your abdomen.
BTW it does work on rabbits - they explode when struck by nice fast
(very) expansive bullets.
Terry Austin
>> That you do not name in any way, and that conflict with credible
>> documents that Richter and I have both seen. Hydrostatic shock
>
>
>Credible documents?
>Where?
>My documents are credible too, problem is I've got hundreds of different
>sources. No one big source I can name.
Apparently, not one little one, either. In fact, not one.
>
>
>> is grossly exaggerated in effect by people who do _not_ have
>> much background in the medical end of gunshot wounds.
>>
>
>Really? You mean ER doctors?
>
ER doctors are not researchers, and are generally far too busy to really pay
attention to anything other than the job at hand.
Do you _really_ want an ER doctor performing medical experiments and
exploratory surgery on _you_ in the Emergency Room?
If you're quoting ER doctors, you're even stupider and more full of shit
than I thought.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Message-ID: <R5Q%5.6339$US4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change that
someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
shot in the head"
Retard.
>
>Your the idiot in this case Terry.
Liar.
You're a real piece of work. Damn. I misspelled "shit."
Michael T. Richter
news:3a4173ec...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> BTW [hydrostatic shock] does work on rabbits - they explode when
> struck by nice fast (very) expansive bullets.
This is because a large cavity gets torn entry into a living body. In a
rabbit this cavity is an appreciable proportion of the total body,
especially with bullets that expand a lot. The "cavity" basically forms to
be larger than the body. That's pretty destructive.
In a human it tends not to be an appreciable proportion of the body. As a
result the tissue deforms to make this large cavity and then reforms within
milliseconds. Human tissue is known to be very elastic and to survive
short, impulse deformation with little to no long-term effect.
Sidhain
> >Provide enough EVIDENCE to prove it.
>
> Why would anyone bother - you've already stated in another post that
> evidence won't make you change your belief.
>
> TC
>
Sufficient evidence to prove it might.
I'm willing to consider it, unlike certain other people here, but as I've said
we do tend to cling to the evidence we've seen already, and the way we've made
up our minds.
Sidhain
> >Yeah Terry at least I'm honest, I know I'm stubborn and hardheaded and admit
> >that--but it doesn't make me wrong (nor does it make me right).
> >
> >One link doesn't not sufficient evidence create.
> >
> But it's one more than I've seen from you so far.
>
Well mis tmy evidence isn't the cheap and easy crap you find on the internet.
Most of it's things I've had to write medical libraries (and some other places)
for, would you like to write those places yourself for the evidence?
Sidhain
"Terry > >> Now you're changing your story. You weren't talking
> >> about caliber. You were talking about wound locations.
> >> You claimed, quite specifically, that a wound to the foot
> >> was as likely to kill you as a wound to the head.
> >>
> >No the person above in this thread brought up caliber/bullet size
comparisons
> >to those I was responding.
>
> Message-ID: <R5Q%5.6339$US4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> "I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change that
> someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
> shot in the head"
>
> Retard.
> >
> >Your the idiot in this case Terry.
>
> Liar.
No that's much further up the chain you really screwed it up this time Terry
the exact message I was replying to was this one.
http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=706970307&CONTEXT=977377036.205258835&hitnum=0
Which included this which is what I was replying to since I'd replied to others
about similar content elsewhere
"
People die when shot with .22s or even .177 air rifles. People survive
hits from all sorts of big fucking guns. That doesn't mean that big fast
bullets are no more lethal than small slow ones.
"
From: David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: FGU - a customer speaks
Date: 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <pgr*hw...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Snipe the rest.
Get a clue Terry.
Michael T. Richter
> Well mis tmy evidence isn't the cheap and easy crap you find on the
internet.
Nor were the 44 entries in the bibliography of the first link I cited. Odd
that you haven't yet cited a *SINGLE* study that supports your stance that
hydrostatic shock from small-arms fire has an equal chance of killing you
whether you're shot in the foot or in the head....
Terry Austin
I can't, since you won't - can't - cite a single source.
You also haven't read Richter's cite, which lists a number of references.
Frankly, the FBI has care more credibility than you.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm (and
http://www.gunnery.net/hwfe.html
in case you missed it.
But, of course, you will not read it again, and you will not cite a single
source from anyone.
As usual.
Terry Austin
>> >Prove it.
>> >Provide enough EVIDENCE to prove it.
>>
>> Why would anyone bother - you've already stated in another post that
>> evidence won't make you change your belief.
>>
>> TC
>>
>
>Sufficient evidence to prove it might.
So you admit to being a liar?
>I'm willing to consider it, unlike certain other people here, but as I've said
>we do tend to cling to the evidence we've seen already, and the way we've made
>up our minds.
>
Especially when someone calls you the idiot you are.
Terry Austin
>
>"Terry > >> Now you're changing your story. You weren't talking
>> >> about caliber. You were talking about wound locations.
>> >> You claimed, quite specifically, that a wound to the foot
>> >> was as likely to kill you as a wound to the head.
>> >>
>> >No the person above in this thread brought up caliber/bullet size
>comparisons
>> >to those I was responding.
>>
>> Message-ID: <R5Q%5.6339$US4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>>
>> "I can't recall Aftermath's hit location system but that doesn't change that
>> someone being shot in the foot and dying is as probable as someone getting
>> shot in the head"
>>
>> Retard.
>> >
>> >Your the idiot in this case Terry.
>>
>> Liar.
>
>No that's much further up the chain you really screwed it up this time Terry
>the exact message I was replying to was this one.
>
>
>
>http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=706970307&CONTEXT=977377036.205258835&hitnum=0
>
>
>Which included this which is what I was replying to since I'd replied to others
>about similar content elsewhere
You can dodge and weave all you want. You can change the subject all you
want.
You're still wrong. You're still full of shit. You're still an idiot.
And you still haven't posted a single source on your myth.
>
>"
>People die when shot with .22s or even .177 air rifles. People survive
>hits from all sorts of big fucking guns. That doesn't mean that big fast
>bullets are no more lethal than small slow ones.
Despite your claims to the contrary. What a maroon.
>
>"
>
>
>From: David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: FGU - a customer speaks
>Date: 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <pgr*hw...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>
>
>Snipe the rest.
>Get a clue Terry.
>
Why, you got one for sale? Who'd you steal it from?
Where's your sources? Got any? Even one? Didn't think so.