From Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: Onno Meyer Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:51:42 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: Ship size/radius > > About how far across, in hexes, is a standard medieval ship? I'm thinking > specifically of triremes, but info for anything from a caravel up through > a galleon or ship of the line would be great. I'm looking for the beam > length in particular -- like from prow to stern, how many yards is a ship? > > -- a fish -- > (i don't exist!) > They tend to be rather small. Vehicles suggests 5,000 cf for a trireme, that might be 2.5*2.5*25 yards. A medevial trader would be as long, but considerably wider. The best solution is to go to a big library and look for books on ship- building: a picure says more than 1,000 words. There has been an attempt by a British (?) university to build a trireme, and a book documents it. In Bremerhaven, Germany, a museum is trying to preserve a medevial ship (Kogge, Hansekogge) found in a river, and pictures might be available in a big library, try those keywords for a search. Onno Meyer ------------------------------ From Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: Onno Meyer Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:42:21 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Vehicle of the week 75 - again tank & jet The "Vehicle(s) of the Week" are a weekly posting with GURPS Vehicles for the benefit of all gamers. If you have new vehicles, contact me. GURPS and GURPS Vehicles are trademarks of Steve Jackson Games Inc., this posting is not connected to SJG. The individual vehicles are copyrighted by their authors. All non-commercial electronic distribution of _my_ work is allowed (this includes FTP files and WWW sites). For back issues, contact me or try the web site http://www.nd.edu/~dfrohlic/GURPS/Vehicles/ Onno Meyer, 3/1996 Panzerjaeger II (Sd. Kfz. 132) Copyright (C) 1996 by James Lowry (jlowry@tfb.com). This was an adaptation of the failed D/E chassis as a tank hunter. It used a captured Soviet 76.2mm anti-tank gun which was later rechambered to take German 75mm rounds as the supply of captured Soviet ammunition ran low. About 200 of these were produced, and some of the Flammpanzer IIs were later re-modified to this type. The adjusted cost is pre-WWII even though the variant was developed after the war started. The long 75mm gun (crit|*|*|no|12|*|*|1/4|1) uses AP (cr.|6d*14|1 mi.|3 mi.) and HE (exp.|6d*4[6d]|n/a|2 mi.) ammunition as needed. Minor Bug: Suspension problems nullify improved suspension advantages off-road. This tank was designed using _Panzerjaeger in Action_ by Uwe Feist and Mike Dario, and _Self-Propelled Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft Guns_ by Peter Chamberlain and John Milsom. The Panzerjaeger II is TL 6 vehicle [Oct. 95 errata sheet] with my armor sloping table. Structure: 260 cf extra-heavy cheap body, max load 23,400 lbs. (HT 750). Tracked motive system with two tracks (DR 3, HT 375) and improved suspension. 25 degree sloped front. Superstructure: 60 cf standard superstructure (HT 100) with open top. 18 degree sloped front. Propulsion: 97 KW tracked drivetrain. Power: 97 KW gasoline engine (DR 5, HT 40), uses 2.91 gallons/hour. 45 gallon self sealing gas tank (DR 5, HT 25, fire 10), endurance 15.46 hours. Accomodations: 4 cramped internal seats, two of which are half in the superstructure. Vision: Slits. Crew: 4; driver, radio operator, gunner, commander/loader. Acessories: Tactical radio (+0 intercept, 15 mi.). Cargo: 40 cf cargo space, 20.2 cf access space, 10 cf waste space + 39.4 cf waste space in the superstructure. Weaponry: Long-barreled 75mm gun in an open mount in the superstructure. 30 75mm AP and HE rounds. Armor: 225 points expensive armor. F6/99 (slope), R5/30, L5/30, B5/30, T5/30, U4/15. Superstructure Armor: 180 points expensive armor. F5/49 (slope), R5/45, L5/45, B5/45. Statistics: Cost $90,065 (adjusted $6,004), design mass 20,300 lbs., max payload 3,100 lbs., max cargo load 3,100 lbs., current payload 800 lbs., loaded mass 21,100 lbs. (10.55 tons), Size Modifier +3 (+2), Radar Signature +3, IR Signature +4, Acoustic Signature +5. Ground Performance (road/off-road): Ground speed factor 14/12, top speed 28/24 mph, acceleration 3 mph/s, deceleration 20 mph/s, MR .25, SR 7, gets 8.25/7.69 miles/gallon. This jet is another response to the Icarus request - a fighter from an universe without available microelectronics. In this case a "dark force" corrupted tech, but you might consider an equivalent of Niven's superconductor-eating biowar agent for a more mundane reason. Computerless Jet Fighter v1.0 (TL 08) Copyright 1996 by Onno Meyer The computerless jet fighter combines advanced materials science with a complete lack of computer chips - find your own campaign-specific reason. The fighter is armed with eight wing-mounted hardpoints (payloads vary, but the performance data assumes 1,000-pound weapons). Without any weapons, the jet can reach 1,320 mph (nearly mach 2). Except for a 45-mile radar and a radio there are no electronics and the sensor countermeasures are limited to chaff and flares. The fighter is a TL08 Vehicle [Oct. 95 errata sheet]. Structure: 500 cf standard extra-heavy body (HT 1,200), max. load 22.5t, superior streamlining, sealed body, three retractable wheels (DR 2, HT 67/134) and combat-stressed high-agility wings (HT 600). Propulsion: Two 9,000-lbs. variable-bypass turbojets with afterburners (DR 5, HT 100) with 360 gallons jet fuel (self-sealing, DR 5, HT 100, fire on 10) for 120 minutes. Power: 180 KW from the turbojets. 155 KW excess power. Accomodations: Two roomy seats, few armored windows (DR 20). Armor: 160 points expensive armor, F4/20 B4/20 R4/20 L4/20 T4/20 U4/20 RW4/20 LW4/20. Cargo: None, but 81.45 cf maintenance access. Accessories: Twenty chaff/flare dischargers, ejection seats, 2*6h limited life support, TL7 cheap long-range air-search radar (scan 22/16, DR 3, HT 20, electronics), improved optical bombsights, autopilot, dual controls, navigation instruments (DR 3, HT 6, electronics), TL7 long- distance radio (DR 3, HT 4, electronics), spotlight (DR 5, HT 2, exposed equipment). Weaponry: Eight hardpoints. Statistics: Cost $4,208,050, design mass 9.8 tons, max. payload 12.7 tons, maximum hardpoint load 12.7 tons, current load 4.2 tons, loaded mass 14 tons, size modifier +4, radar signature +5, IR signature +9, acoustic signature +6 (+9 on the ground). Ground Performance: Speed factor 26, top speed 221 mph (reduced to stall speed), acceleration 8.5 mph/s, deceleration 10 mph/s, MR 0.25, SR 3. Water Performance: None. Air Performance (standard/afterburner, loaded hardpoints): Speed factor 116, stall speed 135 mph, top speed 986/1131 mph, acceleration 17/19.5 mph/s deceleration 10 mph/s, MR 12.75, SR 5, ceiling 14,744/15,324 yards, 5.48/1.57 mpg. One of the most common payloads is an ejectable gunpod with a 20mm caseless gatling and 1,800 rounds API (ver|cr|6d*4|20|15|1.5 mi.|3 mi.|100|1,800). It is DR 5, HT 60, $19,765, 1,202 lbs. and 26 cf (storage volume). Next Week: Another Panzer II by James and a Hovertank written by me for Lucas Albers' universe. ------------------------------ From nt@salford-software-services.co.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: Niall Teasdale Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:42:37 +0100 Subject: GURPS Magic 2nd Edition Hi all, I bought GURPS Magic ages ago (mine has the original "duelling wizards" cover). Could anoyone tell me what changes between the first and second editions? Is it worth me getting the second edition? Thanks, Niall. ------------------------------ From revenant@willow.apana.org.au Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: Revenant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:34:00 +1000 (EST) Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Jayson Howell wrote: [SNIP] > As for forcefield effectiveness, I use my own type based on those found in > Lensman. They are ablative forcefields. If you damage them, they get weaker. > But the damage must be significant. Most sidearms won't affect ship's > shields for example. Star Wars shields don't seem ablative to me - just weak on their own scale. i.e. a starfighter shield might stop (or reduce damage from) one or two starfighter blasts. They're largely immune from character scale weapons although something like an E-web has a shot at taking one down. IMHO, the only way in which SW shields are ablative is if you penetrate them and hit the shield generator... > Lightsabers: Not being able to use them is a different point entirely. I > based use it to back up why I don't think star wars in general is TL 11 or > higher. The reference for this decision? If you read the novelization of > Return of the Jedi, you will see it is based on some ideas that were later cut > from the film. the beginning has Luke sitting in Obi-Wan's home on Tatooine > finishing up construction of a lightsaber, which was a final part of his > training. It is also consistent with the description of Forceswordsmanship Actually an idea being bandied about on the SWRPG mailing list (which I dropped because I already get 100+ messages per day) was that force powers were required to create a lightsabre. This gels nicely with the concept that your apprenticeship is complete when you can build an LS. A side thread suggested that the colour of a lightsaber blade required different levels of difficulty to create. I forget the exact thoughts but construction of a Red Lightsaber was considered a sign of great skill. One campaign even had a greatly coveted ancient lightsabre which boasted a GOLD blade. Anyway, I digress - just thought the idea might appeal to some of you.. > listed in Martial Arts Adventures (and presumably MA2E, though I have yet to > purchase this...but it is on order from my local store!) which says that > cinematic users construct their own blades. If no one else is building this, > it could easily be a secret. Again,. this is just the technology I'm > defending, not the weapon's other merits. It's a facet of technology that only Jedi are interested. If you buy the theory that force skills are required in their creation, the lightsabre is as much a mystical weapon as a high-tech one... > Blasters (again): I gave blaster pistols a damage of 3d+6(2) in my game. Sounds reasonable. > As for stormtrooper armor, I gave it Combat Infantry dress DR all around > *except* for a DR of 20 on the torso (reduced to 10 against blasters) so that Sounds good. > Ewoks could hit them and kill them, so that lightly armed troops would have a :( Ewoks could hit and kill them because they were cute and cuddly and the good guys and because Lucasarts could smell a profit to be made from mass-merchandising. It's been said before and I'll say it again - ROTJ should have been set on Kashyyk(sp?) the Wookie homeworld. Wookies rising up and overthrowing the empire's elite troops would have been far more credible. But I digress again. If you want to assume the ewok battles as canon I think a better fix would be to assume that physical attacks do stun damage rather than normal damage. This affects the target as per normal damage but you can't die from it and you recover from it at a rate of 1 per 10 minutes... > chance, and because even Princess Leia, with her pewny little blaster, took > out stormtroopers with ONE SHOT! This means that a shot doing average damage I think this was more luck than anything else. As I recall she only did it once. Leia's Sporting Blaster was not intended for use against elite troops in armour... > (16 points) would penetrate DR and do 12 points of damage (after impaling > bonus) to the trooper inside. If the average stormtrooper has a HT of 11 (if Sounds right. They should be like Special Ops characters - normal level attributes but lots of points invested in military skills... > it's good enough for the Navy Seals, it's good enough for the Empire) then > he's making consciousness rolls now. I arbitrarily decided that Imperials > always failed if they were less than 100 points. That was my own rule of > thumb though. If the vitals are targeted, the shot gets only a -3, and the > target would take 18 points of damage. Ouch! With Bacta tanks around, this > was not a problem for most PCs. After all, I decided that stormtroopers > penalties for guns were ALWAYS doubled, and the first shot is ALWAYS a > snapshot (doubled of course) so that heroes had less to fear. But with that > many shots streaming by, less accuracy isn't necessarily safe to walk through I believe an optional rule in Martial Arts the "stormtrooper academy" rule suggests that a bad guy's first shot always misses - this gives 'our heroes' time to react... > Cyborgs: You're right, I forgot Lobot. He's Lando's aide by the way. But he > didn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd care if people thought he was > creepy. He just did his job. Lando. Right. Yup, he just did his job. And I doubt that he's unique... > About droids...I just neede an arbitrary reason why NOT A SINGLE DROID LOOKED > HUMAN. *Especially* espionage droids. Wouldn't someone have caught on that Here's an easy one. Not every droid looks inhuman. Sure, all the ones we saw in the movie looked inhuman but that was what, maybe half a dozen droids? And most of them were used droids being sold by the sandpeople. So, your easy fix is "Sure there are droids that look like humans. But synthflesh is EXPENSIVE, as are personality chips that believably simulate humans (or whatever)." As an aside, Star Wars just has a FEEL that life is superior to machinery. There are many examples of this in the movies, including: Luke deactivating the autopilot to waste the first Death Star, weapon systems designed to work with a gunner - not without, Starfighters that must have pilots etc. So there's the possibility that infiltration droids just simply might not be as good as human agents - or at least CONSIDERED to be that way... > this would be a good idea? not in my games. If the players argue and say > "why?" respond with "this is space opera, not sci-fi. If it was sci-fi, the > rebels would all be dead." and make arbitrary rules. Remember that reality Yeh. It helps to lay out all rules that appear arbitrary BEFORE you start so that at least the players can't whinge that you didn't warn them. > does not *have* to be consistent everywhere, just within your campaign. If > you make it known that the rules are different and tell the Players what the > new rules are, there shouldn't be a problem. Anyway, I didn't even want the > option of covering droids with flesh. It just isn't done. Yes well, it could be possible but prohibitively expensive. Or simply impossible with available tech... ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:25:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Blade Runner On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Crowhurst; Jon wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 ostrich@bayou.com wrote: > > > Has anyone looked into the possibility of setting up a Blade > > Runner-style world? Any ideas? > > > > cya! > > Michael > > ostrich@bayou.com > > > > --- Bayou Internet - Monroe, Louisiana - www.bayou.com --> > > BLADE RUNNER is similar to GURPS Cyberpunk. You checked this out? > And add in the androids from GURPS Cyberpunk Adventures or GURPS Robots. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:18:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: GURPS:Dinosaurs On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, MA Lloyd wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Alan Kerr wrote: > > > The playtest draft covered everything from the Paleozoic thru the > Cenozoic in Beastiary format, and reprinted the material from > Ice Age. I know several people complained about the title in the > playtest, but I suppose it was felt GURPS Dinosaurs would sell better > than GURPS Paleoecology. Is it just a REPRINT of the stuff from ICE AGE? Ice Age is a great book, but I have it. So I go back to my original position - I ain't gettin' Dinosaurs. Greg. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:44:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: GURPS Conversions > Incidentally, HERO Games' Fantasy Hero has a conversion table at > the back to convert into different RPGs. One of these is GURPS. As a > result you can convert other games to GURPS via HERO useing it... Double converting? No thanks - picking numbers at random would be more accurate. Greg. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:52:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: In-Depth Books > IMHO, Spirits and Undead should probably be in the same book - > it really depends on what you are calling spirits but I don't think > there'd be enough on spirits to fill a book... There are LOTS of interesting spirits that aren't undead. Perhaps a GURPS Spirit Magic is in order. You could use the rules already set down in GURPS Voodoo without tying such a flexible system to Haiti. Greg. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:47:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: In-Depth Books On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Dr Kromm wrote: > On 30 Mar 96, Revenant wrote: > > I also agree that a GURPS source book on undead would be seriously > > useful (not to mention cool!). > > *Sigh* To think that I proposed GURPS Undead once and they said, > "It does not meet our present needs." Now that I have the contacts, I > no longer have the time. Perhaps someday . . . How much interest is > there, though? > -Kromm Speaking personally, I would buy it IMMEDIATELY. Greg. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:39:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: H&K G11 On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, fish wrote: > On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Hal Carmer wrote: > > > Look for GUNS GUNS GUNS, it has the formulas you need for creating a gun. I > > was happy using it to create the rifles used in Aliens... > > Guns Guns Guns being 3G3? Isn't it out of print? I'm not sure whether it is out of print but BEWARE its GURPS stats. In particular, damage tends to be way too high. 3G would have been great if it had worked, but it doesn't. Gunbunny Greg. :( ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:56:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: Cyberpunk Weapons A question of taste. What sort of weapons do people like characters to be able to OPENLY carry on the streets in their Cyberpunk games? Holstered auto-pistol? Gyroc pistol? Military lazer rifle? Does it vary from area to area? Even if there are zones where any weapon may be carried, how difficult do you like to be to GET military tech? Greg. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:47:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: OK, I'm impressed On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, The Forever Man wrote: > Did you notice a huge differnce in the time it took to do the battle scene? > I'd like to use these advanced rules also, but I think the combat's slow > already. I'm afraid it'd get slower. In my experience, it is more fun to use the advanced combat system than not. If you are spending too long in combat, have fewer, but more interesting, fights. The complexity and deadliness of the GURPS system favors such an approach. Greg. ------------------------------ From banj0@deepsouth.co.nz Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: banj0@deepsouth.co.nz (banj0 øß|iViøn) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 22:30 NZST Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids > 2) Droids are built with slave mentality programmed into them. Asimov >insisted the robots of his universe have his 3 laws. It wasn't that a robot >without these laws wouldn't work, it was that the legislature enacted a bill >that required all robot makers to install those laws as primary programming. > A similar set of laws from the days of the Old Republic probably puts >slave mentality as a manufacturing standard. Certainly a system that requires >restraining bolt holes on all droids can abide with the existences of such a >requirement. I imagine it'd also make it a lot easier to sell the droids. - -banj0 "If you play more than two chords, you're just showing off" ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:04:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: Alaconius qualification P.S. The mage in question is actually familiar with TL 7, but didn't learn magic until he had been to TL 3. Sorry for the confusion. Hasteph Neh. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:14:48 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:43:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: What about Bloodtypes and Robots On Fri, 29 Mar 1996 tgm@rhein.iam.uni-bonn.de wrote: > I'm still not sure, if i should use the WoD- or the BT-Vampires ... It depends on whether you like the WoD. Also, feel free to mix and match. I'm taking half the vampires in BT and making WoD clans out of them - if nothing else, it helps flesh out the vampiric world beyond the west. > GURPS needs a *real* Bestiary! > A Monster Manual like the Bestiary for HERO ... it's great, because it > covers alot of genres in quit a nice way. > (You should see me after reading the first time through GURPS Bestiary, > with all the nice animals and this "fine" Werewolf ... ;-( Have you tried GURPS Fantasy Bestiary? I highly recommend it. Greg. ------------------------------ End of gurpsnet-digest V1 #1000 ******************************* To subscribe to gurpsnet-digest, send the command: subscribe gurpsnet-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-testlist": subscribe gurpsnet-digest local-testlist@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "gurpsnet-digest" in the commands above with "gurpsnet-l". From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:37:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Just thinking... On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 PBEM@aol.com wrote: > I conducted a little experiment this morning. I asked myself what games were > my favorites. Then I counted the game books I have purchased for each > system, and found that the results were a bit different. > I think that one thing that makes a difference is if you are talking about > the game system, or the game world. For example, I do not think much of the > Shadowrun game system, but love the Shadowrun world. That is the primary > reason I bought any of the books. Don't forget supplement quality. I love a lot of the White Wolf basic books (although the GURPS versions are better where available). However, the supplements are so uniformly awful that they ensure that my cash goes to GURPS, GURPS and nothing but GURPS. GREG. ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:49:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: In-Depth Books On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Sue and Sean wrote: > >> Why not > >> add in some of the other anchient undead such as lich, barrow wights, > >> revenants, mummies (will these be covered in G:Egypt?) .... > > > > I understand that there's already a Fae book in the works. I > >agree that it should have the same sort of diversity as Bloodtypes. > > Egypt does have mummies and other similar undead (barrow wights can only > be had near barrows, which are rather British after all, and liches are > far too DunDish -- T$R is likely to sue). > > GURPS Faerie Folk has been discussed and attempted several times, but > keeps vanishing again. Perhaps the wee folk are stealing the > manuscripts, or perhaps we're simply not cleared for that information. GURPS Faerie Folk would be TERRIFIC. I would much rather see it than this upcomming GURPS Goblins comic Victorian thingee. ------------------------------ From banj0@deepsouth.co.nz Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: banj0@deepsouth.co.nz (banj0 øß|iViøn) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 22:30 NZST Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids >didn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd care if people thought he was >creepy. He just did his job. Maybe obvious augmentation gives an automatic Social Stigma >About droids...I just neede an arbitrary reason why NOT A SINGLE DROID LOOKED >HUMAN. *Especially* espionage droids. Wouldn't someone have caught on that >this would be a good idea? not in my games. If the players argue and say >"why?" respond with "this is space opera, not sci-fi. If it was sci-fi, the >rebels would all be dead." and make arbitrary rules. Remember that reality >does not *have* to be consistent everywhere, just within your campaign. If >you make it known that the rules are different and tell the Players what the >new rules are, there shouldn't be a problem. Anyway, I didn't even want the >option of covering droids with flesh. It just isn't done. Maybe droids with a flesh covering get the Secret, with the risk of lynching/// having an argry mob rip all the syth-flesh from their exterior. >> ultimately I chose TL 9 with MANY anomolous technology. The reasons were >> multiple: Blasters seem to be the most advanced military grade beam weapons. >> Vibroweapons are widespread, but monowire is unheard of. Antimatter power >> supplies? I never found any. Droids are NOT sentient. The few exceptions >> are ALL "malfunctions" which were not designed that way. And the list goes >> on.... Star Wars strikes me as a World in technilogical decline. The Empire prefering it's subjects as peasants. - -banj0 "Nothing Human is Simple" ------------------------------ From gml21@hermes.cam.ac.uk Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "G.M. Littmann" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:02:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: Dear Alaconius Dear Alaconius, which spells do you think change most in usefulness between tech levels 3 and 7 (apart, of course, from "tech" spells)? In particular, which spells would it be most useful for a TL 3 mage to learn if he were intending to visit a TL 7 world? Hasteph Neh. ------------------------------ From Visionboy@msn.com Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "Jayson Howell" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 11:46:44 UT Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids Yes, this IS different from the combat system in GURPS Space, and significantly so. It is not realistic, it is inherently cinematic. It goes out of its way to say as much. I believe that Lensman is thusfar the only place you can get these rules, though I've heard that they will be included in the GURPS Compendium soon to be released. - Jayson - ---------- From: owner-gurpsnet-l@io.com on behalf of Chuck & Kathy Bennett Sent: Sunday, March 31, 1996 11:26 PM To: Chris Talbot Cc: gurpsnet-l@io.com Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids At 08:46 AM 3/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jayson Howell writes: [snip] >> If you don't have a copy of GURPS Lensman, get one. The Space Opera Combat >> System is invaluable, though I had to generate my own Starship construction >> system. I am ratifying it now that I have access to Vehicles, 2nd edition. >> If you are not an IO member already, become one. This book is great! >No, I don't have Lensman. I've only been playing/collecting GURPS for >about two years. I don't have many places that sell books in the Toronto >area either. I've never even seen a copy of it. Starship construction >rules are in GURPS Space, are they not? [snip] I keep seeing references to this Space Opera Combat System. Is this different from the space combat system in GURSP Space? If so, is it available anywhere other than GURPS Lensman? Chuck Bennett bennett@rollanet.org ------------------------------ From ip304@brems.ii.uib.no Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Frode Braendoe Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:11:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Chris Talbot wrote: > I'm working on an unofficial version of GURPS Star Wars and I'm in > a bit of a bind. I've been working on this current version of GURPS > Star Wars for a few months now but I've gotten stuck with the droids. > The only one I've got done is the 3PO unit but I know it's not right. > He's far too fast and I'm not even sure if I've been using the > rules properly. So, I'm asking for help. =20 Why don`t you just make him slow due to some production error or=20 something? Personally, I don`t think GURPS Robots is the ideal book for designing=20 the 3PO unit. It is after all a very cinematic robot. And the rules in=20 GURPS Robots are for realistic ones. I once made a robot for use with Atomic Horror. A mad professor had made=20 an army of such robots to help him conquer the earth. I wanted them to be big, strong and slow with a blaster cannon instead of= =20 an nose. If I had followed the rules, they would've been big, strong and=20 VERY fast. And that was NOT the idea. So I just decided that they should=20 be slow. > When I eventually get the > sourcebook done, I'll post it on the mailing list. Anyone who helps > contribute will be listed as contributors to the book. >=20 I might be interested in helping you. I`ve got GURPS Robots,=20 Space, Vehicles and Ultra-Tech. What kind of contributions would you like? Robots, Vehicles, Weapons,=20 Planets... ? Frode Br=E6nd=F8 -of the hydrophobic! Email: ip304@ii.uib.no URL: http://brems.ii.uib.no/~ip304 ------------------------------ From revenant@willow.apana.org.au Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Revenant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:24:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: gurpsnet-digest V1 #994 On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 PBEM@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-03-31 00:33:39 EST, you write: > >> *Sigh* To think that I proposed GURPS Undead once and they said, > >> "It does not meet our present needs." Now that I have the contacts, I > >> no longer have the time. Perhaps someday . . . How much interest is > >> there, though?-- > Count me in. I would also like to see (either in this book or another) a bit > about "lands of the dead. Sounds good. "GURPS: Life after Death" or the equivalent... ------------------------------ From ditoro@cs.odu.edu Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Aahzmandius Karrde Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:16:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Chris Talbot writes: > > > > Brain: Standard with a neural net, Absolute Timing, Doesn't > > Sleep, Eidetic Memory 2, Lightning Calculator, Mathematical > > DOESN'T SLEEP??? I remember quite well C3PO saying to Luke that if he > wasn't needed anymore at the time, he would then "turn off" for a > while. But that was a power down, he could not turn himself back on. The ability is demonstrated once or twice later in the series in both instances where he is shut off and powers down by himself. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Di Toro | ditoro@cs.odu.edu | A. Karrde - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCG's*RPG's*Star Trek*Babylon5 | 12+144+20+(3*(4^1/2)) Go to my home page at: | --------------------- + 5*11 = 9^2 + 0 'http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ditoro/'| 7 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From Visionboy@msn.com Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "Jayson Howell" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 12:47:58 UT Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids I don't like this theory. It has been established many places that Wookies were enslaved by the empire. The Imperial troops didn't shut down the bar run by the escaped prisoner, so I would assume it's not a Wookie. - ---------- From: Revenant Sent: Monday, April 01, 1996 5:37 AM To: Chris Talbot Cc: Jayson Howell; gurpsnet-l@io.com Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids > Have you read Tales From The Mos Eisley Cantina? I've just begun and they > have a stupid idea that a Wookiee owned the Cantina. To me, that doesn't > fit in with the idea that Wookiees are below human. I dunno. Tatooine was a backwater planet where anything is possible... And, while it's true that the empire had a bias towards humans I don't think that it was strictly official... ------------------------------ From ditoro@cs.odu.edu Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Aahzmandius Karrde Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:37:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: GURPS Conversions On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Thomas A. Vallejos wrote: > You wrote: > > > >snip > > > >I think this would be a good idea still, I have a book published by > Armory > >(I think) that has several conversions in it. I still havent seen a > decent > >conversion from Star Wars to X. How do you convert a dice based system > into > >one that uses numbers. I have always wanted to know what 5D ment in > numbers. > Hmm. I don't if this would work, but how about just taking the average > of thedice rolls. E.G. 5d becomes 18. (3.5 X 5 = 17.5 round up to 18). > It might be too high. Thoughts any one... For this one in patricluar, you should go straight to the source. WEG made up some conversion rules to take Star Wars and MasterBook and switch the system. I'm not sure which way the paper went (I think it was MasterBook to Star Wars) but it shouldn't be to hard to reverse. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Di Toro | ditoro@cs.odu.edu | A. Karrde - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCG's*RPG's*Star Trek*Babylon5 | 12+144+20+(3*(4^1/2)) Go to my home page at: | --------------------- + 5*11 = 9^2 + 0 'http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ditoro/'| 7 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From revenant@willow.apana.org.au Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Revenant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:57:40 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Wishes and Mass combat On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Chimera wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Dr Kromm wrote: > > From p. M43, it is crystal-clear that a Lesser Wish or a Wish > > cannot decide multiple (or "composite," if you prefer) actions, *even > > if they are represented by one die roll*. A Mass Combat Strategy roll > > reflects multiple actions -- this is why there are a dozen pages > > dedicated to working out all the modifiers to that roll -- and so > > cannot be affected by a Lesser Wish or Wish. That is "official," if > > that's what you wanted to hear. > > Different logic applies to Luck. Luck cannot be shared (p. B21), > > and therefore cannot be used on Mass Combat Strategy rolls. That, > > too, is the "official" response. > Great! That _does_ make things a little more consistent. I'd been > looking at the article Slocum wrote for Roleplayer #30, which was pretty > clear about Luck being usable on Strategy rolls and other multiple-person > effects. Is there a more recent version of Mass Combat on the Web anywhere? To clarify here: As I understand it, you CAN use it on regular strategy rolls. However you can't use it on the strategy rolls used as the basis for the mass combat system... ------------------------------ From revenant@willow.apana.org.au Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Revenant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:46:12 +1000 (EST) Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Barbarian wrote: > On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Jayson Howell wrote: > > As for forcefield effectiveness, I use my own type based on those found in > > Lensman. They are ablative forcefields. If you damage them, they get weaker. > > But the damage must be significant. Most sidearms won't affect ship's > > shields for example. > Or you could try that they are ablative, but recharge fairly slowly. > That way, smallarms fire damage wouldn't be much of a problem, unless you > have an awful lot of it, but larger weaponry would. (I recall a bit of > concern over a tripod weapon in one of the movies - seems to indicate > that perhaps the weapon fire was getting to be something to start being > concerned with.) That was an E-web - it's practically on a Starfighter scale anyway according to WEG... > > Blasters (again): I gave blaster pistols a damage of 3d+6(2) in my game. > This seems entirely reasonable to me. Keeping the energy weapon damage > fairly low & slightly armor piercing seems to be within the spirit of > SW. What about the "Energy Crossbow"? I'd go with a slightly higher > damage, because Chewie used a single "powercell" per shot, if I recall > correctly. (Although I'd also rule these powercells didn't hold quite as > much energy...) It's called a bowcaster and they're fairly primitive energy weapons. Give 'em maybe 3D+2... ------------------------------ From Visionboy@msn.com Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: "Jayson Howell" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:34:07 UT Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids Again, these droids do NOT have the slave mentality disadvantage. Being a willing slave does not give you a slave mentality, being unable to function without instruction does. The droids in Star Wars are quite capable of making their own decisions, they are simply superceded by their Reprogrammable Duty. - Jayson - ---------- From: owner-gurpsnet-l@io.com on behalf of banj0 øß|iViøn Sent: Monday, April 01, 1996 1:30 PM To: gurpsnet-l@io.com Subject: RE: GURPS Star Wars--Droids > 2) Droids are built with slave mentality programmed into them. Asimov >insisted the robots of his universe have his 3 laws. It wasn't that a robot >without these laws wouldn't work, it was that the legislature enacted a bill >that required all robot makers to install those laws as primary programming. > A similar set of laws from the days of the Old Republic probably puts >slave mentality as a manufacturing standard. Certainly a system that requires >restraining bolt holes on all droids can abide with the existences of such a >requirement. I imagine it'd also make it a lot easier to sell the droids. - -banj0 "If you play more than two chords, you're just showing off" ------------------------------ From ditoro@cs.odu.edu Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Aahzmandius Karrde Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:33:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Chris Talbot wrote: > Jayson Howell writes: > > > supplies? I never found any. Droids are NOT sentient. The few exceptions > > are ALL "malfunctions" which were not designed that way. And the list goes > > on.... > Did I add sentience to 3PO? If I did, I'll change it. I'll have to agree and dissagree with this one. Yes, Droids are not sentient off the production line. No, the sentient droids are not accedents. One of the things that comes out in a lot of books is that normally droids get a mind wipe every few monts. Something inherit about the way the brain is made sets up a learning process and the brain turns sentient. Thats the way it's described in the books, and unlike Star Trek you CAN take the books pretty much for what thier worth. Each book goes through a massive disection at LucasFilm by 2 specific people. Now I may be a little off on that but that is my understanding. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Di Toro | ditoro@cs.odu.edu | A. Karrde - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCG's*RPG's*Star Trek*Babylon5 | 12+144+20+(3*(4^1/2)) Go to my home page at: | --------------------- + 5*11 = 9^2 + 0 'http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ditoro/'| 7 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From jhunterj@lexis-nexis.com Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Hunter Johnson Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:57:20 +0500 Subject: Re: Cyberpunk Weapons On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:56:02 +0100 (BST), "G.M. Littmann" said: > A question of taste. What sort of weapons do people like characters to >be able to OPENLY carry on the streets in their Cyberpunk games? >Holstered auto-pistol? Gyroc pistol? Military lazer rifle? Does it >vary from area to area? Even if there are zones where any weapon may be >carried, how difficult do you like to be to GET military tech? I like GURPS Cyberworld, where openly brandishing a .22 will have the nearest NERCC slamming you into the asphalt. It does vary by country, though. Hunter - -- /\ J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhunterj@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhunterj@io.com for GURPS bib. & Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-errata@io.com Character creation is not an exercise in accounting. -- Dr. Kromm ------------------------------ From jickes@indiana.edu Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: John Ickes Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:22:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: In-Depth Books On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Revenant wrote: > I don't think dragons or unicorns deserve their own book but a > book containing them as well as other creatures of myth (Manticores, > Sphinxes, Chimera etc.) is justifiable. Perhaps a whole chapter should be > dedicated to Dragons - they ARE a large enough topic for that. > Wasn't this called Fantasy Beasteary(sp?)?? > IMHO, Spirits and Undead should probably be in the same book - > it really depends on what you are calling spirits but I don't think > there'd be enough on spirits to fill a book... > I think they both need theyr own books. You could reprint the intoxication rules from Calahan's in the one on spirits, and... Oops wrong spirits, never mind. Shadowcat ------------------------------ From revenant@willow.apana.org.au Sat Apr 25 16:15:14 1998 From: Revenant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:37:59 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: GURPS Star Wars--Droids On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Chris Talbot wrote: > Jayson Howell writes: > > Starship construction rules ARE in Gurps Space, but they don't do a lot for > > Space Opera construction. Neither does Lensman. That was the part that took > > the longest for Star Wars, I had to build my own. I have access to Vehicles > > 2nd Edition, it's being playtested. I can't send you any of the book, but if > > you are willing to pay $10 a month, you can get an Illuminati Online account > > (http:\\www.io.com\). Among other things, it let's you download playtest > > versions of upcoming releases. If not, what I CAN do is design the ships > > using those rules and then send the ship's statistics to you. > Don't worry, I respect SJG too much to ask someone to pirate their books. > I've been thinking about joining IO. How does one go about paying? > Credit card or cheque/money order? Either. I pay by credit card, since mailing cheques from Australia is a pain... [SNIP] > > Jayson's wish list for books to build a GURPS Star Wars conversion: > > Basic set (duh!) > > Robots > > Space > > Psionics > Designed my own rules for the Force. May end up using Psionic rules anyway, > though. After I've playtested it, I'll have to make up my mind. > > Martial Arts, 2nd edition (if you have 1st edition, make sure you have Martial > > arts adventures too) > For what purpose? I don't have MA. It contains lots of useful special maneuvers and cinematic martial artist abilities (a lot of which could be used as force powers) and it even contains a Martial Arts style called Forceswordsmanship. It also contains cinematic combat rules including the rules for highly skilled swordsmen. I wouldn't put it down as a must have for Star Wars but it would be useful. Look at getting it in the long run, anyway - it's can be useful in any campaign... > > Lensman > > Fantasy Folk 2nd edition > > Vehicles, 2nd edition (also includes rules for *building* weapons! only > > available through IO.) > > Ultra-Tech (I think a new edition just came out. If not, it will within a > > month) Yup, it did. In our local store last Friday... > > That's all I can think of off-hand. The guy I sold my books to is coming down > That's it? I thought I had a pretty good > collection of GURPS books but I guess not. I'm missing a number of books > from that list. Me too. I have a little over 30 books and I don't have Lensman. :( Before my time, I'm afraid. Still, I understand there's a chance that SOCS will appear in Compendium II... > > to visit in 3 weeks. I should be able to jot down everything I need while > > he's here. > > I would give cyborgs a -10 social stigma (minority). > > Get Fantasy Folk, 2nd edition. it'll help create races. I've designed many Or if you can get a second-hand copy of aliens cheap it'll do almost as well - it's a bit more dated than FF2e but it's a little more geared towards space campaigns... > > of the major races. Timothy Zahn proposed that wookies have climbing claws, I > > don't like that idea, so I didn't include them. If you do include them (to > > make the conversion compatible with the books) don't charge points for them. > > The points for claws only come from their bonus to damage. Since wookies > > don't use them to fight, this doesn't apply. Just give a bonus to climbing > > skill. As for the Subjugation disadvantage, it's basically this: for -20 > > points, the race has NO legal rights. If you want to blow up a droid, go to > > it. Though you might get fined for destruction of private property. > Have you read Tales From The Mos Eisley Cantina? I've just begun and they > have a stupid idea that a Wookiee owned the Cantina. To me, that doesn't > fit in with the idea that Wookiees are below human. I dunno. Tatooine was a backwater planet where anything is possible... And, while it's true that the empire had a bias towards humans I don't think that it was strictly official... ------------------------------ End of gurpsnet-digest V1 #1001 ******************************* To subscribe to gurpsnet-digest, send the command: subscribe gurpsnet-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-testlist": subscribe gurpsnet-digest local-testlist@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "gurpsnet-digest" in the commands above with "gurpsnet-l".