| From: | Doctor Doom <JCH8169@***.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Non-Standard Characters, Languages, Magical Potency, and more. |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Jul 1994 17:41:44 -0500 |
========================================================================
Ivy > Whatta ya do, work at Doc. Doom's think tank? <grin>
Loki> Hah! I RUN Doom's think tank. :) Check the .sig.
Actually, it is rather a partnership of sorts. I provide ideas, and he
provides abuse -- uh, errr . . . COUNTER-ideas. Despite Loki's and my widely
varying views on politics, philosophy, and religion, the manner after which we
cogitate upon issues is quite similar. Which often results in us arguing the
same side of the issue, but "Devil's advocating" it to death, so to speak.
We complement (and compliment -- only occasionally true in Loki's case) one
another rather well, in my view. *Sarcasm v 5.0.1*
========================================================================
Von Zachary Carr:
>Hey there...just out of curiousity, how many of you out there have played
>with a non-standard totem? what kind? what stats?
In our campaign, we have had a Dove shaman, and I have also developed a Fox
totem, using the article in "White Wolf" as an inspirational springboard.
Should either of these interest you, feel free to request the statistics of me.
>also, what about other non-standard characters? like vampires, wendigos,
>free spirits? I've run a modified shape-shifter and had a lot of fun
>causing havoc with him. anyone have anything interesting to share on this
>topic?
I know a player who has implemented a Tiger Shape-shifter in one campaign,
without overtly apparent difficulty, or so I was led to believe. Although, you
are aware, are you not that shape-shifters may not have cyberware?
Besides that, I know of one Vampiric PC. What found its origins in an effort
at a new role-playing challenge Now, truly, the player /did/ derive a
great deal of pleasure from the character, as I observed it; although he often
confided that he was trepidatious about what ramifications of his vampiric
nature would have on the power level of the group. Eventually, the situation
evolved into one where both the player in question and the Game Master were
quite concerned about potentially unbalancing effect on the campaign. Quite
sadly, the character is no longer played. A shame, really.
We have also, in a past group, had a Sasquatch, a character which, I may state
without any reservation, worked perfectly.
>I am actually trying to justify, to myself, allowing a player to run a 4-foot
>rabbit in my campaign. (he's based on Usagi Yojimbo if you know who I mean).
>the character is a phys-ad, meta-human...hell, I'll look up his "stats"
One experimental character that our resident rigger tried for a "one-shot"
shadowrun was a (human) ninja inspired by the Usagi Yojimbo series. When
the character introduced himself, he stated his name translated as "rabbit."
Unfortunately, he was mumbling and this was slurred into something
approximating "rabid" so when the Australian cyberknight was submitting
his proposed plan for the operation, it led to an exchange like this:
"So, we got that rabid chap --"
The ninja, already walking towards the vehicles called out over his shoulder:
"USAGI!"
"Is that an adjective?"
The group died laughing, the amusing element deriving at least partially,
I presume, from the inflection of the Australian character's voice.
========================================================================
Von Hamish Laws:
> Yes, and just wait until your characters have the pleasure of
>attracting Verjigorm, the hunter of great dragons with their spells forming
>beacons on astral space.
Verjigorm. It's Earthdawn Horror fauna such as this terror which me cause to
view with considerable skepticism and even derision those individuals who
exhibit quite the cavalier attitude about the horrors, expressing supreme
confidence in their ordinance as a method of "handling them." Anything which
forges a career from the stalking of Greater Dracoforms is a force with which
one must reckon, as I expect it shall make rather short work of a machinegun
toting cyberknight.
"Okay, what we've got is an eight foot tall beastie, has concentrated acid for
blood, attacks on sight, and is generally unpleasant."
[ Paraphrased from Alien^3 ]
========================================================================
Von Darth Vader:
>I) Well an elven mage with 6 Impr. Invis is totally and uterly invisible
Forget not the possibilities of thermographic vision or ultrasound.
Technomongers are want to cover all the visual bases, so to speak.
>II) Give him a 6 Sleep spell and 7 Sorcery (Concentration spellcasting)
> and he'll be able to drop any enemy you can think up, with only a
> TN of 2 for his drain.
A Rigger operating a drone remotely would be immune to this stratagem.
>IV) Give him 8 Armed combat(specialised in monowhip) and being invisible
> ge can cut ANY enemy to pieces.
Should he remain invisible. As I said before: Ultrasound and thermographic.
>VI) He can heal himself in less than seconds
. . . so long as he remains conscious, and the submission of healing time
measured in mere seconds is fraught with hyperbole.
>VII) He can shapechange to an elephant and take a Panther Cannon Blast and
> survive it.
According to the official FASA magazine, there are limitations upon the
shapechange spell. That aside, even an elephant would experience certain
difficulty with a round from a Panther cannon.
And remember the axiom: "When Magic Fails, Tech Prevails."
========================================================================
Von Herrn Getchell:
> Depends on your criterion. English is really hard to learn if
>you aren't a native speaker. As far as raw word counts go, English tops
>all the others at 900,000 or so, plus another 350,000 technical terms.
You are correct, of course, the criteria is the most salient issue.
Structurally, even given the fact that English grammatical conventions
is replete with exceptions, is yet quite simple. This observation is
from indications I have received from non-native speakers.
One element which many foreign speakers have bemoaned is the absolutely
inscrutable English spelling, which I grant even throws native speakers
for tremendous loops e'en at the best of times. German spelling is, by
comparison, far more rational.
Grammatically, German is far more complex. Mark Twain either said or quoted:
"It takes 30 hours to learn English, 30 days to learn French,
and 30 years to learn German."
Not entirely accurate, but it expresses the proper sentiment.
Consider further how much English seems inclined to bow to vulgarism and slang.
English has become far more slick, loose, and -- dare I say it? -- corrupted.
"Ain't," according to what I hear, is now considered a *shudder* valid term.
Proper utilization of adverb has degraded. People no longer note or even
understand the distinction between shall and will. Furthermore, the (American)
commission for the maintenance and enumeration upon standards of English
grammar has (apparently) given leave to dangling participles.
It is likely that this trend of assimilation of the vernacular shall continue,
resulting, on the one hand, in a far simpler (grammatically speaking) but also
a far baser language.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia
