From: owner-the-edge-digest@ (The Edge Digested) To: the-edge-digest@robin-nvh.bvsd.k12.co.us Subject: The Edge Digested V1 #75 Reply-To: the-edge@robin-nvh.bvsd.k12.co.us Sender: owner-the-edge-digest@ Errors-To: owner-the-edge-digest@ Precedence: bulk The Edge Digested Friday, July 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 075 Today's subjects from The Edge: [The Edge] RE: Nihilism deck? Re: [The Edge] Where to Start From??]] [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 Re: [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 Re: [The Edge] RE: Nihilism deck? Re: [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 Re: [The Edge] Illuminatus! Trilogy Re: [The Edge] OTE: Superheroics (was alternate settings) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. Lightner" Subject: [The Edge] RE: Nihilism deck? On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, it was written: > Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:05:46 -0600 > From: "Carl L. Congdon" > Subject: [The Edge] Nihilism deck? > > Since everyone's been batting around "themed" decks, here's a question: > has anyone ever put together a Nihilism deck, featuring Comptons, > LeThuys, and Glorious Lords, not to mention a few handy allies? I think > it would be fun to see if the bad guys might actually win... This reminds me of my all-time favorite match-up which I am just now reconstructing, the Compton/Sommerite deck. I couldn't bring myself to give it a cute name, because nothing beats the horror of just saying "Comptons and Sommerites." It does surprisingly well, and J.S. and Cherry look so CUTE together! Another Perversion of the Normal Order is the Pharoah/Glug deck which I retired because it was unstoppable and hence boring. Any other PNO's out there? Oh yeah - in keeping with the nihilistic theme, I fantasized about an ENORMOUS (~100 card) deck that focused on stealing/eliminating pull with Consuela Herrera, Andalusia Dog, etc., while constantly upping the ante with Unattainable Desires until everybody else ran out of cards, or just a big deck focused on keeping Message to Space in play until you're the only one left. But I like my friends and want to keep playing with them, and their tolerance has limits. - Rob [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 18:08:55 -0700 From: Florian Merx Subject: Re: [The Edge] Where to Start From??]] Eric Jome wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Florian Merx wrote: > > > a)Make them members of TV-Team trying to make a report about Al Amarja. > > This would get them instantly into the midst of things as various power > > groups would try to stop them from giving AA any publicity. > > seems like they would be pawns in the conspirators games on AA... > lots of groups would love to expose their enemies. and certain > groups are intimately tied into this very concept... Quite definitely. It's the hard-and-fast way to get them involved. The fun thing is that you could really play it like a psycho thriller... I can just see the face of Julia Roberts (Reporter) when she finds her Sound Techie (someone with a red shirt) spread all over her bathroom. Ten seconds later Peace Force knocks on her door... > > b)Make them part of a group of people invited to Al Amarja for an > > inheritance. > > this isnt too bad either, but it needs to have additional tie ins > to last for more than a handful of sessions. i could (as storyteller) > cover this in one sitting. > Ah, yes. I forgot to mention that one of the things they got was a huge derelict house (see also 'The Munsters') that is known to have some kind of treasure hidden in it. Loads of fun defending from thieves, searching a house built by the Teacher of the Terminal's architect etc. I guess that should be enough to get the players hooked on AA. ;) BTW: Me also Reader of Invisibles. Beautiful comic. And the Illuminatus was my key to my less-than-conservative life. That and a lengthy stay in hospital, a place where reality and perception is ...changed anyway. Have fun, Flow [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:48:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric Jome Subject: [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 The second installment of a fix for some of the basic problems in On The Edge involves subversion of cost. Subversion of cost is a fancy term for any card which allows you to call other cards by ignoring their cost. The classic example is Tulpa's Secret; crank it and call a Tulpa condition and a Character, no matter what the cost. This can lead to calling highly expensive and effective characters on the first turn! The point of having a cost on a card is to restrict the utility of powerful cards. Effects which ignore the cost of the card to bring it into play thus short circuit the rules and lead to abuse. To correct this problem, all cards in On The Edge marked with the phrase "crank to call any" should have that phrase replaced with "crank for 4 pull to call". This opens up the option of calling several cards with a lesser total cost, but helps to avoid the quick call for some of the bigger, more effective cards. Listed below are all of the cards that employ this phrase and are subject to this correction; Gladsteins' Secret (2) Glorious Lords' Secret (3) Glugs' Secret (4) Hermetics' Secret (5) Pharaohs' Secret (7) Tridents' Secret (8) Mattias Allemande (15) Robert Richardson (198) Karla Sommers (228) May Ferendi (D30) Dr. Maria Valdez (A148) There are a few cards in this category that require special attention. These are listed below; Tulpas' Secret (9): This card provides 3 Pull to call a character and with a Tulpa Condition. Jean-Christophe D'Aubainne(70): This card proveds 3 Pull to call Terminal cards. Really Quite Angry Kid (C72): The text on this card should read as follows: "Once per turn if Really Quite Angry Kid is in play, you may call a piece of Sub-Random Gear ignoring its cost. This does not count against your limit for playing 0-Cost cards." There are also a few cards that may seem to be affected by this changed, but actually ignore this fix. These should all be played as printed; Kergillians' Secret (6) The Dirt on Dr. Nusbaum (10) Eyeballs Drillbit (C29) Vortex (D104) The Secret of the Saou (A5) Madeline Svora (A138) [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:06:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Clay Colwell Subject: Re: [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Eric Jome wrote: > The second installment of a fix for some of the basic problems in > On The Edge involves subversion of cost. Subversion of cost is a > fancy term for any card which allows you to call other cards by > ignoring their cost. The classic example is Tulpa's Secret; crank > it and call a Tulpa condition and a Character, no matter what the > cost. This can lead to calling highly expensive and effective > characters on the first turn! > > The point of having a cost on a card is to restrict the utility of > powerful cards. Effects which ignore the cost of the card to bring > it into play thus short circuit the rules and lead to abuse. > > To correct this problem, all cards in On The Edge marked with the > phrase "crank to call any" should have that phrase replaced with > "crank for 4 pull to call". This opens up the option of calling > several cards with a lesser total cost, but helps to avoid the > quick call for some of the bigger, more effective cards. I can see where a fix would be needed for Tulpa Secret (for the great many >4-Pull-cost cards that can be played) and for Pharaoh's Secret (given the 3 Pharaoh cards that have >4-Pull-cost), but, for the rest of the cards you mention, only 1 card exists per cost-subverter that has >4-Pull-cost. Indeed, "fix"ing the card to provide 4 Pull for cards of a specified Trait, in my mind, gives them that much more power. I don't know if changing the cards to read "crank to call any with Pull cost of 4 or less" would be overly restrictive, but it doesn't grant them the additional power of using that bonus Pull to call 2 or more cards. "Crank for 4 Pull to be used solely for the calling of one card with trait " is far too wordy, as well. Huhn. > Listed below are all of the cards that employ this phrase and are > subject to this correction; > > Gladsteins' Secret (2) > Glorious Lords' Secret (3) > Glugs' Secret (4) > Hermetics' Secret (5) > Pharaohs' Secret (7) > Tridents' Secret (8) > Mattias Allemande (15) > Robert Richardson (198) > Karla Sommers (228) > May Ferendi (D30) > Dr. Maria Valdez (A148) > > There are a few cards in this category that require special attention. > These are listed below; > > Tulpas' Secret (9): This card provides 3 Pull to call a character and > with a Tulpa Condition. > > Jean-Christophe D'Aubainne(70): This card proveds 3 Pull to call Terminal > cards. Is there a Terminal card that has a >3-Pull-cost? > Really Quite Angry Kid (C72): The text on this card should read as > follows: "Once per turn if Really Quite Angry Kid is in play, > you may call a piece of Sub-Random Gear ignoring its cost. This > does not count against your limit for playing 0-Cost cards." I can see where the fixes you mention here are useful since they keep in mind possible "abuses" that might come about from future expansions (more >4-Pull-cost cards). Still, I did want to note that this fix would result in a power "redistribution"; that fix, allowing for 2+ cards to be called via the Pull generated by these "broken" cards, would certainly change game play. ****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** eris@bga.com ****** * "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically * * mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." * * -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal * [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:30:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Therese Littleton Subject: Re: [The Edge] RE: Nihilism deck? On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, R. Lightner wrote: > This reminds me of my all-time favorite match-up which I am just now > reconstructing, the Compton/Sommerite deck. I couldn't bring myself to > give it a cute name, because nothing beats the horror of just saying > "Comptons and Sommerites." It does surprisingly well, and J.S. and Cherry > look so CUTE together! > .... But I like my friends and want to > keep playing with them, and their tolerance has limits. > > - Rob And if I may say so, your Compton/Sommerite deck has pushed the limits of my tolerance more than once, you nefarious scoundrel! Especially when I'm trying to play one of my control-freaky "This is the way it *really* is on Al Amarja" decks. Hmmph. Seriously, Rob has hit on one of the non-secret secrets of OnTE. Namely, that decks made with two "opposing" groups seem to be among the strongest. Anybody else fall victim to such nastiness? - -Therese [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:02:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric Jome Subject: Re: [The Edge] Great Fix, part 2 On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Clay Colwell wrote: > Indeed, "fix"ing the card to provide 4 Pull for cards of > a specified Trait, in my mind, gives them that much more > power. I don't know if changing the cards to read "crank > to call any with Pull cost of 4 or less" would be > overly restrictive, but it doesn't grant them the additional > power of using that bonus Pull to call 2 or more cards. > "Crank for 4 Pull to be used solely for the calling of > one card with trait " is far too wordy, as well. Huhn. these are both good ideas and i had thought about doing one or the other (and several variants) at one time or another. the original idea, i cannot claim as it was mentioned to me by several Atlas people a few years ago. personally, i find that this fix optimizes the needed errata with the complexity it takes to remember it during play. the primary goal of a fix is improving the game, but an important secondary goal is to retain much of the same intent and simplicity. this whole thing is unofficial, of course, and you can always play it however you like... > I can see where the fixes you mention here are useful since they > keep in mind possible "abuses" that might come about from future > expansions (more >4-Pull-cost cards). Still, I did want to note > that this fix would result in a power "redistribution"; that > fix, allowing for 2+ cards to be called via the Pull generated > by these "broken" cards, would certainly change game play. actually, i am well aware that this is more a redistribution than a correction. and i intended that. i want secrets and other "crank to call any" cards to be powerful. but i dont want these cards to avoid the basic Pull-to-pay-Cost game mechanic. with Pharaohs Secret (and Robert Richardson) having the fix applied, you can call any of the following; - Akorra Encombi, Ali Twine - 4 Anti-Matter Grenades - Cyril Doros, Isa Ifaq, Robert Richardson, and Disintegrator Ray - Vibe Valiant, Ali Twine, Robert Richardson, and Guglielmo Vigneto this is pretty good. and it should be; after all, you know the secret of the pharaohs, so you should be able to get major technical help (grenades) or discover almost their entire operation (the personalities). with the old way, you could call any of the following; - Prem K. Sharma (or any pharaoh) - 1 Anti Matter Grenade - Disintegrator Ray - Robert Richardson, Guglielmo Vignetto - Robert Richardson, Akorra Encombi - U.N. Forces, Robert Richardson, Ali Twine, Isa Ifaq, Anti-Matter Grenade, Guglielmo Vignetto the first and the last here are the ones that concern me. Pharaohs are too good, mostly because of the Three Factors (cant be attacked by most, high DP, and pull). you should have to put in more than 1 card with 0 cost to get one. and the last? surprised to see that? think its illegal? "crank to call any" as it now stands allows you to call a 0 cost card, even if you already played one. so, you can really load up with a secret as it is... also, to the issue of certain groups not having many 4 pull (or more than 4 pull) cards. this is again more a change in philosophy of how "call any" cards should work. the secret will allow you to call more of the low level entities, true, but these are also invariably more vulnerable. and as to Terminal; no, no terminal card is 3 or more... but the Coral Entity, their best card, is 3. and i didnt want Jean-Christophe calling more than the entity at once. he cant, for instance, call Julio _and_ Deborah after the fix. eric [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:57:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kinney Subject: Re: [The Edge] Illuminatus! Trilogy On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, E. Lemming wrote: > A caution on The Illuminatus Trilogy combined soft cover edition, it has > been "edited" compared to the original separate paperback books > published by Playboy. I imagine the hardcover is the same way. What is > particularly upsetting to me is that this has not been indicated in any > way. > > The "editing" removes 90% of the sex scenes from the original books. > They *removed* *90%!!!!!!!* of the sex scenes?!?!?!? What, were the focus of the paperbacks lots and lots of sex and the occasional "oh, yeah, some people want to kill us"?!?!? This frightens me more than a Jess Franco movie marathon... Oh, I picked up RAW's new book, _Everything is Under Control_, today -- basically something of a dictionary of conspiracies and such. As I get further into it, I'll post my opinion of it. alberich@iglou.com | Mark Kinney | http://www.iglou.com/nations "I'm the only girl in school who has the Coroner's Office bookmarked as a 'Favorite Place.'" -- Willow, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 18:07:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Myles Corcoran Subject: Re: [The Edge] OTE: Superheroics (was alternate settings) On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Joshua Kronengold wrote: > Way cool; how many other Invisbles fans are there on the list (Me > Too)? Me too, too. > I've been contemplating ways to merge the Everway and OTE systems for > a while; Everway has some really cool bits (fortune deck, traits which > give abilities in reasonably well defines unrelated areas, powers, > drama), while OTE's system is better in general (IMO). What have you come up with? I've tinkered with adapting the Everway fortune deck to a variety of settings - SF, Glorantha, Invisibles, Superhero comics - but I guess that's more appropriate for the Everway list, which I realize now I haven't heard from in ages. Perhaps I've been summarily unsubscribed. I do remember that Mathijs Holter and Avram Grumer discussed the possibilities of a science-fiction fortune deck at some length in Alarums and Excursions. I agree that skill and power need to be separated in OTE if you want to go to super-characters as seen in the comics. I suspect that it might be necessary to specify a few extra traits too. While a character like Mr Fantastic is easily described with: Elastic Body (5 dice Control/6 dice Power) He's made of rubber, folks Massive Intellect (5* dice - Technical Trait) One of the world's foremost inventors of buggy weird-tech. He's also really good at mislaying stuff, 'cos we rarely see the same device twice. etc. a character like Wolverine might be more complicated simply because he has all the skills/traits that a top secret agent would have PLUS the mutant healing factor, adamantine skeleton/claws and so on. I have no real problem with additional traits and suspect that Jonathan Tweet limited it to three in the rules to keep things simple. Power gaming is easy enough with only three traits already. > This seems to me the way things should be on average -- a 2D fringe > scientist should be able to produce effects which have a normal > power of 4D, and must be resisted against 4D, not the 2D of their > skill, etc (it may be a Bit over the top, but it should certainly be > within the normal range of a starting character, even if only at the > upper end). This is such a good idea I think I'd incorporate it into my campaign right away if I was actually *running* one at the moment. Life really gets in the way of roleplaying. > Now, what this doesn't explain is the actual game effect of > power, which I haven't entirely established -- When it comes down to > it, if power is equal between the action and the acted apon (I punch > myles), it factors out. If, on the other hand, it's not equal, it > should have an effect on the action even before skill is factored > in; in extreme cases (I punch the Hulk), it should possibly even > cause skill to become irrelevant, unless the skilled person can find > a way to counteract the power difference. This is where I would introduce a scale factor, like Steffan O'Sullivan has used in FUDGE, and is implicit in logarithmic games like DC Heroes. Effin' Huge Strength (Hulk scale) is not really the same as Effin' Huge Strength (Spiderman scale) and neither of them is really comparable to Superman's strength from the planet tossing days, if I understand the stories correctly. Scale differences could easily be factored into gestalt combats, with bonus dice or penalty dice for each point of difference. If you want it less mechanical, stick with the descriptive scale and make it up on the fly. "Spidey vs. the Beast? Today Spidey wins, but only because his Superstrength(Hefting Hummers) beats the Beast's Superstrength(Pressing Pintos)." Myles [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge ------------------------------ End of The Edge Digested V1 #75 ******************************* [O] You received this message because you are subscribed to the-edge-digest [0] To (un)subscribe, send a message to majordomo@robin.ml.org with body of [O] (un)subscribe the-edge-digest To get off digest, subscribe the-edge [O] To post a message, send it to the-edge@robin.ml.org