From: owner-the-edge-digest@ (The Edge Digested) To: the-edge-digest@robin-nvh.bvsd.k12.co.us Subject: The Edge Digested V1 #99 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 Thursday, August 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 099 Today's subjects from The Edge: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. Lightner" Subject: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy Something has always puzzled me about the seeming arbitrariness of the degeneracy rule. I understand that Deadly Inspiration is excluded from tournament play as it is possible to rack up an extraordinary number of Influence points in one turn with no chance of losing them. However, New Blood has the same effect and I find in my (non-tournament) games that I win far more often thanks to the unassailable Influence of New Blood than any use of Deadly Inspiration. Why isn't New Blood also considered degenerate for such purposes? - - Rob Lightner [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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:06:15 -0400 (EDT) From: David Freier Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE That seems to be the way they once ran an OTE LARP at Con of the North one year. I didn't participate, but the rules seem very similar to what was explained to me. Maybe some of the good Minnesotans on this list can better inform us as to how that LARP was done. David "Throckmorton" Freier [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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:08:15 -0400 (EDT) From: David Freier Subject: Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy > Something has always puzzled me about the seeming arbitrariness of the > degeneracy rule. I understand that Deadly Inspiration is excluded from > tournament play as it is possible to rack up an extraordinary number of > Influence points in one turn with no chance of losing them. However, New > Blood has the same effect and I find in my (non-tournament) games that I > win far more often thanks to the unassailable Influence of New Blood than > any use of Deadly Inspiration. Why isn't New Blood also considered > degenerate for such purposes? > > - Rob Lightner My guess is that New Blood is an Environmental, and thus vulnerable to more game card effects that axe Environmentals. Deadly Inspiration is only susceptible to Gang-A-Gley. MY Take on it; David "Throckmorton" Freier [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, 20 Aug 1998 01:08:39 -0600 From: Keith Baker Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE At 01:09 PM 8/19/98 -0500, Eric wrote: >people are given a small packet at the outset. inside the packet are >some OnTE cards and some other things... a character might also receive a >number of other cards, such as Gear or such... a character receives 1 >"activation token". this token represents using >some ability the character may use. the basic ability is an attack. >when you wish to attack someone, you find a judge, give them your token, >and resolve the attack in the OnTE fashion; compare AP to DP and dont >forget to add gear or whammies (Total Taxi) or whatever. the judge keeps >the token. if a person is popped, that person loses their token, if any, >and must not interact with others for a short amount of time (15 minutes). It sounds to me like what you're talking about is specifically an On The Edge LARP as opposed to an Over The Edge LARP... is this the case? And as such you're not really worry about major/minor traits, flaws, fringe powers, etc? I've written a few live games myself, but generally games intended for a small number of people (like 10-20); as such, rather than trying to represent all of a characters traits, I'd simply give the character specific abilities that fit with how they might try to use the trait in the context of the game. The tougher character would get a better combat ability. The telepath could ask two yes/no questions that must be answered. The detective could ask a GM any one question over the course of the game; his "investigative abilities" are what allows him to get the answer. And if the character I'm representing has 4d6 of "Cajun cooking", I don't worry about it, because I know the game isn't going to involve cooking... and if it does, I'll just let him do it. This works well when you have a specific story to tell and a small, dedicated group of players. Obviously, it doesn't work so well for a large sprawling game spread out across a con. The system you describe would sounds like it would work in that environment (obviously, since you've done it); it just seems to me like it would play out more as a strategy game than as a roleplaying game. This is also my problem with things like dice; they are portable and do the job just fine, but rules involving dice tend to pull me out of my character. Of course, I don't have a better idea, I'm just rambling. So don't mind me. ;) [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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:11:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric Jome Subject: Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, R. Lightner wrote: > Something has always puzzled me about the seeming arbitrariness of the > degeneracy rule. I understand that Deadly Inspiration is excluded from > tournament play as it is possible to rack up an extraordinary number of > Influence points in one turn with no chance of losing them. However, New > Blood has the same effect and I find in my (non-tournament) games that I > win far more often thanks to the unassailable Influence of New Blood than > any use of Deadly Inspiration. Why isn't New Blood also considered > degenerate for such purposes? because no one has managed to show in a tournament game that they can win every time with New Blood. indeed, it can be quite a challenge to even come close if someone plays Newtonian Slam. Deadly Inspiration would be a horribly broken card if you played only 1 of them in your tournament deck... now imagine pack 5 or 10. with nothing but low cost artist, say Aurora Bolt and Malak Suzier, and artist resources and the whammy, you could easily score 16 influence every game by turn 2 or 3. it is true that Deadly Inspiration and New Blood both share a common flaw (risk free influence), but it is far easier to win games in general with Deadly Inspiration than it is with New Blood. 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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:11:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Clay Colwell Subject: Re: [The Edge] OnTE degeneracy On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, R. Lightner wrote: > Something has always puzzled me about the seeming arbitrariness of the > degeneracy rule. I understand that Deadly Inspiration is excluded from > tournament play as it is possible to rack up an extraordinary number of > Influence points in one turn with no chance of losing them. However, New > Blood has the same effect and I find in my (non-tournament) games that I > win far more often thanks to the unassailable Influence of New Blood than > any use of Deadly Inspiration. Why isn't New Blood also considered > degenerate for such purposes? My guesses: 1) New Blood potentially helps *everyone*, not just one person (that is, anyone with Burgers in their Conspiracy can benefit [dontcha want Isil Zaya now?]). 2) More than one type of card can affect/destroy it. Status Quo knocks it out, as well as the Unified Theory-type Environmentals. Ellen Wu (I believe) can get rid of it too, as well as the Character (from Arcana) that can Replace Environmentals. ****** 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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:04:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric Jome Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Keith Baker wrote: > It sounds to me like what you're talking about is specifically an On The > Edge LARP as opposed to an Over The Edge LARP... is this the case? the game was, in my opinion, an OTE game. all of the storyline and player interaction were based on OTE play style. the cards were used only as the mechanic by which contests and such were resolved. > And as > such you're not really worry about major/minor traits, flaws, fringe powers, > etc? you wouldnt have to use OnTE cards to use the same system. simply give players a 3x5 index card with OnTE mechanics on it and an original character. but, i dont quite understand your "concern" over the difference between OnTE and OTE. what aspects of OTE do you feel were not represented by the system i described? using the OnTE basic rules let you have a simple and robust set of mechanics to fall back on... why would you care in a LARP if a character had a major or minor trait? its just an ability. its the characters responsibility to act out any "flaw" they might have, but remember that a lot of people dont like to play damaged goods. > I've written a few live games myself, but generally games intended for a > small number of people (like 10-20); as such, rather than trying to > represent all of a characters traits, I'd simply give the character specific > abilities that fit with how they might try to use the trait in the context > of the game. The tougher character would get a better combat ability. The > telepath could ask two yes/no questions that must be answered. all of this is reflected in the OnTE method, i think. someone with better combat ability gets a high AP... and you could still include mechanics like the telepath you describe (trade in your token to get the questions). the rules as i described forced players to budget their actions and allowed for very fast, very simple resolution of most in game effects while staying fairly true to the background. it would not take much to convert more toward open ended specifics (like totally original characters or abilities) while retaining some of the mechanics mentioned. 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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:22:41 EDT From: DocCross@AOL.COM Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE In a message dated 98-08-19 14:38:57 EDT, you write: << what were you planning on using for rules, Doc? >> The game I have in mind is far more like improve theater than it is like a conventional RPG. Basically, I'm thinking about creating a bunch of characters (say 4-5 times as many as there will be players, to give a good selection) and then, once they have been chosen (the night before the game) creating relationships between each character and at least 4-5 other characters. EXAMPLE: Doc Cross' relationships C.A Radford = friend, fellow Cut Up Bob the Dog = casual acquaintance, fellow film noir fan Dwight Renfield = Doc has never really met him, but suspects he is a vampire Arielle Ames = Mysterious woman from Doc's past Dr. Wu = hated enemy Now, of course I'd go into somewhat more detail, but you get the idea. The object is to not have a room full of complete strangers. Of course, some of the relationships might be one sided. In the above example, Dwight Renfield (who IS a vampire AND a serial killer) has no idea who Doc is and certainly has no clue that Doc suspects him of being one of the undead. Once relationships are made, I'd write down a few "ignorable goals" for each character. Example: Doc's "ignorable goals" 1: Find out why Arielle has come back to town. 2: Kill Dr. Wu, IF it can be done discreetly. 3: Find a date for Friday night. 4: Try to find out which of the people at this gathering is the evil Control Freak known as "Mr. Happy" 5: Pass a note to the spy he is supposed to meet here. Listen for code word "Jabberwocky" You get the idea. Finally, I'd also give everyone a few vague rumors, most of which would be completely false. At least, until the players decide "Hey, that MUST be the plot device of this game":) Example Rumors 1: Someone here is one of the undead. 2: There is a master jewel thief at this party. 3: Her Exaltedness has a very special spy here. 4: Two of these men are secret gay lovers. 5: An item of great psychic power is hidden here. Ok, so THEN, after all that is done, I give everyone their character sheets (including one for ME, cos this game is almost GMless) and give them a few hours to digest what they read. Oh, and I would NOT write ALL of the above stuff. I want to be a bit in the dark too:) The game is simple enough. Everyone gets together and we have a cocktail party. No specific plot, no hard goals, no structure other than the party. What happens then? True OTE unpredictability and chaos, but DAMN it will be FUN. Party lasts 3-4 hours, then we all go out to dinner and DISCUSS the game, which will also be Big Fun. Oh, as for task resolution....I think Scissors/Paper/Stone with the added effect of giving everyone some points to spend if they REALLY want to be successful OR stop a success. And, all of the "staff" at the party (waiters, bartender, security, piano player, whatever) would also function as arbiters, probably via a very quick dice off. So, what do y'all think? [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, 20 Aug 1998 10:20:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Yanni Cooper Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE [Original message appended after sig] Yes. I want to play. Suggestions: Use index cards for gear, items, etc... But then, you where probably already going to do that, eh? ===============Yanni Cooper=\ Chaos reigns within. | Reflect, repent, and reboot. The code was willing, | Order shall return. It considered your request, | But the chips were weak. \=aslum@rocketmail.com======== - ---DocCross@AOL.COM wrote: > > In a message dated 98-08-19 14:38:57 EDT, you write: > > << what were you planning on using for rules, Doc? > >> > > The game I have in mind is far more like improve theater than it is like a > conventional RPG. Basically, I'm thinking about creating a bunch of characters > (say 4-5 times as many as there will be players, to give a good selection) and > then, once they have been chosen (the night before the game) creating > relationships between each character and at least 4-5 other characters. > > EXAMPLE: Doc Cross' relationships > > C.A Radford = friend, fellow Cut Up > Bob the Dog = casual acquaintance, fellow film noir fan > Dwight Renfield = Doc has never really met him, but suspects he is a vampire > Arielle Ames = Mysterious woman from Doc's past > Dr. Wu = hated enemy > > Now, of course I'd go into somewhat more detail, but you get the idea. The > object is to not have a room full of complete strangers. Of course, some of > the relationships might be one sided. In the above example, Dwight Renfield > (who IS a vampire AND a serial killer) has no idea who Doc is and certainly > has no clue that Doc suspects him of being one of the undead. > > Once relationships are made, I'd write down a few "ignorable goals" for each > character. > > Example: Doc's "ignorable goals" > > 1: Find out why Arielle has come back to town. > 2: Kill Dr. Wu, IF it can be done discreetly. > 3: Find a date for Friday night. > 4: Try to find out which of the people at this gathering is the evil > Control Freak known as "Mr. Happy" > 5: Pass a note to the spy he is supposed to meet here. Listen for code > word "Jabberwocky" > > You get the idea. Finally, I'd also give everyone a few vague rumors, most of > which would be completely false. At least, until the players decide "Hey, that > MUST be the plot device of this game":) > > Example Rumors > > 1: Someone here is one of the undead. > 2: There is a master jewel thief at this party. > 3: Her Exaltedness has a very special spy here. > 4: Two of these men are secret gay lovers. > 5: An item of great psychic power is hidden here. > > Ok, so THEN, after all that is done, I give everyone their character sheets > (including one for ME, cos this game is almost GMless) and give them a few > hours to digest what they read. Oh, and I would NOT write ALL of the above > stuff. I want to be a bit in the dark too:) > > The game is simple enough. Everyone gets together and we have a cocktail > party. No specific plot, no hard goals, no structure other than the party. > What happens then? True OTE unpredictability and chaos, but DAMN it will be > FUN. Party lasts 3-4 hours, then we all go out to dinner and DISCUSS the game, > which will also be Big Fun. > > Oh, as for task resolution....I think Scissors/Paper/Stone with the added > effect of giving everyone some points to spend if they REALLY want to be > successful OR stop a success. And, all of the "staff" at the party (waiters, > bartender, security, piano player, whatever) would also function as arbiters, > probably via a very quick dice off. > > So, what do y'all think? > > [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 > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com [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, 20 Aug 1998 15:27:37 -0400 From: "John M. Baker" Subject: Re: [The Edge] Live Action OTE Doc's rules remind me of Interactive Literature Foundation standard character- izations. I like it. If anyone is interested in more, they can learn more at http://www.ilfinfo.org and ask for a "game bank" game for ideas. These games are available for the cost of the paper used plus S&H, or just download some of them in PDF format for free. They should give you a pretty quick idea of what a LARP can be like without many rules. John Baker [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 #99 ******************************* [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