From: Atti2dboy@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:22 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied In a message dated 11/8/99 8:16:39 AM, jh39@ukc.ac.uk writes: >I can see how being excluded >entirely from the group would be unpleasant but I don't >follow your reasoning that characters with different goals >and backgrounds would be the problem. It's the *degree* of difference that can be a problem. Usually a campaign world is hostile enough without adding to the party's woes by having discent rear it's ugly head. BP is such a campaign world. It's dangerous enough without having to worry about somebody cutting your air line. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Personality quirks and friendly rivalries are one thing. When goals differ dramaticly the resultant stress lowers any chances of the party (believably) staying together after the next challenge is overcome. It's like suspension of disbelief in the movies. Every one in the audience knows that the smooth corporate guy is going to turn on his compatriots the second he smells money. People in the audience yell, "Don't trust that guy!', "Leave the bastard behind" and my favorite "Shoot him now!". But the cliché holds and the "good guys" stick withe people *they do not trust*. Yeah, but that's what makes them the good guys! But think how many people would have survived horror or action movies if the character with "different goals" had been removed before they could get others killed. Anyone remember a film character named Carter Burke? :) =Rich "Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Atti2dboy@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:22 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Flame the newbie! In a message dated 11/8/99 7:13:25 AM, banzai@missouri.edu writes: >The would also be less complex (somewhat) which means there would be a >smaller chance of failure over time (slightly more reliable), especially for >a situation where there wasn't reliable parts replacement or maintenance. Sure. A well designed colony vehicle could have spare parts turned out in a small machine shop. No computer diagnostics needed. :) >It would require less energy to cover the same distance since there would be >less drag. Hydrofoils would be cheaper in the long run. The only concern >with hydrofoils over traditional hulls would (again) be maintenance and >weather. In general hydrofoils may not weather storms quite as well as >traditional boats. Vehicle energy expenditure does not seem to be a great concern on Poseidon, but reliability is. My comment about extreme weather was aimed more at the *size* of ocean going vessels rather than their hull design. I'm no sailor, but I understand that large ships stand a better chance of weathering high seas than small boats. So any "boat" is going to have trouble in Poseidon's storms. In order to navigate you need to go big or go under. =Rich "Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Atti2dboy@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:22 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") In a message dated 11/8/99 5:27:21 AM, bbetty@glad.org writes: >Rich [banzai@missouri.edu] writes: "Possession is 9/10ths the law. Unless >soemeone else is stronger." Um, no. It is Rich [atti2dboy@aol.com] :) >Isn't that the issue? I mean, isn't the issue that the Incorporates and >their ilk *are* stronger? Natives aren't heavily armed, at least not in >comparison to their enemies. From what I have read of mining Long John it is all done under water. How many islands full of dangerous alien life forms are the Incoporates going to want to grab hold of for their arcologies? Sure, some islands have strategic commercial or military value, but not all of them. It seems to me that with Poseidon's low (human) population reclaiming islands from the natives is a costly expence with few returns. "We killed 137 people and took their island. Now we have 324 square miles of insect and carnivore infested low lands, and every Native within 1,000 square miles is sabotaging every refueling station we've got. Who's idea was this, and why does he still work for us?" :) BTW: Has anyone read "Blueheart" by Alison Sinclair? From the blurb on the back cover it sounds very similar to BP. =Rich "Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Tun Kai Poh [t_poh@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:46 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Access Denied Questions... Jason said: (snip) > Basically, I've moved to a new University and >nobody here seems to have heard of the game. I've put out a >call for players, intending to run Natural Law as a one-off >game to introduce them to it. It struck me though, that >however good it may be a single Convention Scenario is >unlikely to portray every aspect of the game at its best. >So a new idea occured to me. I'm thinking of making it a >series of games, each one focussing on a few different, or >perhaps intermingled, areas within the game. Back in April (before fulltime employment happened, ending most of my free time for writing BP stuff) I was working on, among other things, a pretty detailed adventure set in a mining camp, but it fizzled because a) a playtest session with my Malaysian players trashed the scenario and convinced me that the adventure structure was too linear and shoehorned b) fulltime employment happened, and the scenario got filed away the same place as the next chapter of Some Die In Kingston. :( But since UC 5/6 has come out, I'm getting a jones to write for BP again, so I'll see what I can do about rewriting my mining camp scenario... Kai Poh Malaysian Lagomorph ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kevin L. Nault [jskln1@uas.alaska.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 7:39 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") "Heivilin, Jim" wrote: > > > True, but there are significant differences between their > > watery world and Viet Nam. > > True but also at the same time not true. There are some similarities and > some differences. More importantly, Poseidon is just as much unlike the incorporates normal operating environments (excepting Hydrospan) as Viet Nam's jungle was to the US Army. Also, the way a traditional fighting force is trained still only poorly equips them to figure out which four people in that crowd of 100 will stick a knife in their kidneys - they lean more towards shooting the entire 100. > > A buncha indigents squatting on the very levels of a > > hostile-as-in-alien world versus their tech-charged cousins > > with wealth, power, and better versions of the same tech > > the indigents use isn't the same as Americans in South Asia. > > And how much do you suppose the Incorporate types know about this hostile > alien world? And the alien critters that will eat you for lunch in a > heartbeat. In any given situation those living "with" or "close" to the > land will know it *much* better than any outsiders. That can be used to > advantage by anyone with a brain. Native 1: (Incredulous) "You ran through *that* part of the Mangrove? That was crazy! There's a Hangin' Joe around there!" Native 2: "Yeah, I know. Still nearly hit the thing's tentacles. Seems like someone forgot to mention it to the Despoilers, though. Pity, that. While they were distracted, I slipped under the water, and came on back." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [jskln1@uas.alaska.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:12 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Access Denied Questions... Jason Hockley wrote: > > Basically, I've moved to a new University and > nobody here seems to have heard of the game. I've put out a > call for players, intending to run Natural Law as a one-off > game to introduce them to it. It struck me though, that > however good it may be a single Convention Scenario is > unlikely to portray every aspect of the game at its best. > So a new idea occured to me. I'm thinking of making it a > series of games, each one focussing on a few different, or > perhaps intermingled, areas within the game. Natural Law > shows the shadier sides of the Incorporate groups, the GEO, > some of the Justice department and even the weather and > ecology of Poseidon. However, it says less about the > different anti-colonial groups, the way the Natives live, > the Long John mining, the cetaceans and so on... An unfortunate side-effect of a game setting as rich and varied as Blue Planet is that all the potential conflicts and varied relations in the game will never come to light in a single adventure. I don't even try within a single campaign; there's just too much to go into the depth with the conflicts that I like to go. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [jskln1@uas.alaska.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:03 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Brian Betty wrote: > > Andrew wrote: "Possession is 9/10ths of the law. And big guns are the other > 9/10ths." More correctly, at least on Westcape, guns are 9/10ths of possession. > Just remember your judo lessons and apply what minimal force you have at > the right point, and your opponent's momentum does all the work for you. > The trick to to let the players dig up the right point. The Church Lady says: Sounds an awful lot like, hmmm, I don't know, GUERILLA WARFARE? There's a quote I love about guerilla warfare, though I can't remember who said it: "A regular army loses if it doesn't win. A guerilla army wins if it doesn't lose." > Incidentally, this is usually the storyline of most computer RPGs I've played. It's a simple but powerful story, and an easy one to get involved in. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:57 PM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Betty [mailto:bbetty@glad.org] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") > > "True but also at the same time not true. There are some > similarities and some differences." > > Between this and the last post: boy, you are punchy today! > And it's only 2pm yourtime! You need either less coffee or > more coffee, I'm not sure which. > Sorry about that. I'm not sure how more or less coffee would impact. I DO know fewer meetings would improve things significantly. Or if the meetings had some purpose or benefit. Sorry. The danger of working for a large bureaucratic organization. > (Woo, I'm excited! When's the next transport leaving? Somehow > the danger is more than cancelled out by the potential wonder ... ) > I originally thought that too. Until Jeff ran us on our first playtest scenario all those years ago. *shudder* Now it just scares me. Jim "I don't know what's down there ... but I know it's bad, ... Very Bad(tm)." Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:13 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") "True but also at the same time not true. There are some similarities and some differences." Between this and the last post: boy, you are punchy today! And it's only 2pm yourtime! You need either less coffee or more coffee, I'm not sure which. "And how much do you suppose the Incorporate types know about this hostile alien world? And the alien critters that will eat you for lunch in a heartbeat. In any given situation those living "with" or "close" to the and will know it *much* better than any outsiders. That can be used to advantage by anyone with a brain." Now there's no doubt about that. But I question *how much* of an advantage it is - sure and they aren't familiar with the planet, but with 99% of the planet "wild" (and some of us know HOW wild it is), how much more do the Natives know? Most of the *planet* is unknown. I'm not tryin' to contradict God, here. Just seems like while there is a *comparative* advantage, but in ultimate terms, Natives are about as ignorant and ill-adapted to the planet as any other monkeys. Only the ceteceans have a personal feel for the important bit of the planet, the watery bits, which would make a real difference in terms of a struggle with the Incorporate. IMHO, of course, as you clearly know more about this than me. Let's put it this way: I'd rather be with Natives than offworlders, but that's not saying much: I'd rather not be out there at all. Anyone 'going walkie' onplanet is asking to be kilt dead. Our own seas are lethal enough, and they got *nothin'* on theirs. I'm sure you're aware of the danger that the sea provides to hairless apes even with all our tech: I can only imagine that kind of environment on a planet whose entire ecosystem is alien *and* utterly unknown to our own. (Woo, I'm excited! When's the next transport leaving? Somehow the danger is more than cancelled out by the potential wonder ... ) - Monkeygod (8-0) My big secret is gonna hover over your life -Fionna Apple *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:02 PM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Insurgencies (was: Landsrechts & Terrorism) > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Betty [mailto:bbetty@glad.org] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts & Terrorism > > Hm. Yes, true. But then again, that is always the situation > in wars, right? > Negative. In WWII (for example) in many (most?) cases the locals in any region involved in fighting had voluntarily evacuated or were not generally involved. There were situations where sympathizers would attack military forces but at the front it was the exception rather than the rule. Behind the lines it was a different matter. IIRC the first modern example of a guerilla war (where there *was* no front line) was Malaysia in 1956 (there have undoubtedly been examples further back in history, insurgency isn't a new concept). And the Government (with the help of 22 SAS) won. > What really made them effective *above and beyond* the 'who > is Charlie' issue is that the European armies couldn't function > effectively in the terrain. They were unfamiliar with the land, > the culture and language of the people, and with jungle warfare. > Again an error. The Australian forces encountered almost universal success. Certain US forces also encountered considerable success. In the set piece battles the US won. In a political sense we got our kiesters kicked. In situations where our soldiers learned about the enemy and the culture and the land they encountered great success. It was just that political decisions from afar nullified those successes. Look at any number of accounts of special operations forces that went into the mountains and lead/trained local forces. Or into the lowland jungles. Or the recon forces of various units, 101 Airborne and others. When they fought smart they won. If we are/were so unfamiliar with jungle warfare how is it we managed to defeat Japan at it in the Philippines (and other places)? > The Vietnamese had been resisting foreign rule for over a > century, > Conflict in that region of the world has occurred a lot longer than that but I don't have facts at hand to support it so ... > were being supplied by the Soviet Union and the PRC, and > were as invisible outside of the cities as in it. How can > you hit an army you can't find? > The supplies weren't nearly as important (in a strategic sense) as the sanctuary North Vietnam provided. When they were getting their tails kicked they could melt into the foliage and make their way north to rest and retrain. It was crucial to their success. Sure if they didn't have the weapons they wouldn't have had the success but if they had the weapons without the sanctuary they would have eventually been tracked down and eliminated or converted. > "The natives are, in the most militant conflicts, essentially > terrorits trying to inflict enough damage on a corp to make > it not worthwhile to continue to mine Longjohn (at least in > And since the Incorporates are *also* businesses rather than just governments, profit or the material cost of any activity must be considered. The "bottom line" as it were. > I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think that this > is true of cetecean anti-Earth movements, as humans are not > able to function in their environment - it is hostile and the > ceteceans have a great advantage in it. > This is a good example but stating that if the "cover" isn't as good then the concept won't work is invalid. Looking at human history any number of insurgencies worked even though they didn't have "cover" as deep. > But I feel strongly that the Natives are screwed - they > haven't the kind of deep cover the ceteceans do because > they are dependent upon the land. > Ever try to find someone in a wilderness type situation who *really* doesn't want to be find and knows how to hide? No easy accomplishment. Granted technology will give you certain advantages currently (IR, heat sensing, remote sensing, etc.) there are ways to overcome or deny any technology. And as new technology comes to the forefront, new ways to circumvent it will also follow. It's the nature of military technology. > This exposes them. They also are technology-dependent, and I would > argue that this makes them little more than an indigent underclass. > How is it you see the natives as technology-dependent? Perhaps 60 or 80 years ago before recontact but they learned to make do with what was at hand long ago. And that became the way of life since then. So, sure it would be nice to have an AutoShot with electronic sights to shoot that GenDiver security troop but lacking that my good old bolt action rifle will have to do. And you're just as dead if the bullet was a 4.5mm hypervelocity sabot round as if it was a 30-30 unjacketed lead slug. Or if it's a poison dart shot through a blowgun. Or a cudgel to the back of the head. > Marginalised, comparatively powerless, and no more deeply > entrenched in the land than their more recent cousins. > I don't see this. They've been on the planet long enough to learn what is dangerous and how to live with it. > Humans have been on the planet only an eyeblink, > and for most of that time were without significant > technological resources to deal with it (like > body-adaption). > All the original colonist were genetically modified. I give up. It seems our opinions are too divergent to reconcile. Never mind. Just my 0.02cs. Jim Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:39 PM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Betty [mailto:bbetty@glad.org] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") > > Jim Heivilin wrote: "The Viet Cong weren't more heavily armed > than the U.S. and R.V.N. Armies either." > > True, but there are significant differences between their > watery world and Viet Nam. > True but also at the same time not true. There are some similarities and some differences. > A buncha indigents squatting on the very levels of a > hostile-as-in-alien world versus their tech-charged cousins > with wealth, power, and better versions of the same tech > the indigents use isn't the same as Americans in South Asia. > And how much do you suppose the Incorporate types know about this hostile alien world? And the alien critters that will eat you for lunch in a heartbeat. In any given situation those living "with" or "close" to the land will know it *much* better than any outsiders. That can be used to advantage by anyone with a brain. > If we're talking home court advantage, there isn't much of > one for Natives as I see it. Comparatively so, sure, > but not so much as to let them hide, thrive, and successfully > strike back. > The only way in many circumstances for the natives *not* to hide would be for the Incorporates to either a) wipe out the natives (which means that now you have, rather than the original 10 or 20% of the population against you, you have ALL of them against you, not to mention the GEO stance on genocide) b) move them all out (been tried. doesn't work for beans in most cases) > Maybe if they were thriving in the deeps, but the forces of > the Incorporate are the ones doing that ... > I would guess that the part of the planet which could be considered "civilized" would be under 1%. And so all of it is basically wild (or "the deeps"). Just my 0.02cs. Jim Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:33 PM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts & Terrorism > -----Original Message----- > From: gareth hanrahan [mailto:hanrahag@iol.ie] > Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts & Terrorism > > Why? Squids can stay underwater indefinitely. There are native > villages that are entirely underwater. I'm not saying that natives > don't need some structures on dry land, but they can move the vast > majority of their activities underwater with no loss. > There are a number of activities that you can't do underwater. Talk for instance (well, anyone with human type vocal cords can't anyway). Anything having to do with fire. Jim Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:15 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Native resistance (was "Landsrechts and terrorism") gar wroted: "Why? Squids can stay underwater indefinitely. There are native villages that are entirely underwater. I'm not saying that natives don't need some structures on dry land, but they can move the vast majority of their activities underwater with no loss." I don't see that they are as independent as the ceteceans, though: they can't disappear, and while I grant that underwater villages are harder to find, squids aren't just a Native phenomenon. - Monkeygod (8-0) My big secret is gonna hover over your life -Fionna Apple *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: gareth hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:51 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts & Terrorism >"The natives are, in the most militant conflicts, essentially terrorits >trying to inflict enough damage on a corp to make it not worthwhile to >continue to mine Longjohn (at least in a certain area). To that end they >have a lot of advantages in terms on anonymity that make the fact that the >corp has more people and bigger guns less important." > >I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think that this is true of >cetecean anti-Earth movements, as humans are not able to function in their >environment - it is hostile and the ceteceans have a great advantage in it. >But I feel strongly that the Natives are screwed - they haven't the kind of >deep cover the ceteceans do because they are dependent upon the land. Why? Squids can stay underwater indefinitely. There are native villages that are entirely underwater. I'm not saying that natives don't need some structures on dry land, but they can move the vast majority of their activities underwater with no loss. > - Monkeygod (8-0) Gar "either way you turn i'll be there open up your skull i'll be there climbing up the walls" - Radiohead *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:45 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts & Terrorism Somebody wrote: "Well, I think the natives may have more of a home-court advantage than you seem to be giving them credit for. One of the things that made the Viet Cong so effective as a fighting force was that it was impossible to tell them from the ordinary citizens of Vietnam - so American soldiers would be faced with situations like having a random teenage girl suddenly rush at a group oif soldiers with a live grenade in each hand." Hm. Yes, true. But then again, that is always the situation in wars, right? What really made them effective *above and beyond* the 'who is Charlie' issue is that the European armies couldn't function effectively in the terrain. They were unfamiliar with the land, the culture and language of the people, and with jungle warfare. The Vietnamese had been resisting foreign rule for over a century, were being supplied by the Soviet Union and the PRC, and were as invisible outside of the cities as in it. How can you hit an army you can't find? "The natives are, in the most militant conflicts, essentially terrorits trying to inflict enough damage on a corp to make it not worthwhile to continue to mine Longjohn (at least in a certain area). To that end they have a lot of advantages in terms on anonymity that make the fact that the corp has more people and bigger guns less important." I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think that this is true of cetecean anti-Earth movements, as humans are not able to function in their environment - it is hostile and the ceteceans have a great advantage in it. But I feel strongly that the Natives are screwed - they haven't the kind of deep cover the ceteceans do because they are dependent upon the land. This exposes them. They also are technology-dependent, and I would argue that this makes them little more than an indigent underclass. Marginalised, comparatively powerless, and no more deeply entrenched in the land than their more recent cousins. Humans have been on the planet only an eyeblink, and for most of that time were without significant technological resources to deal with it (like body-adaption). The corps make a significant amount of money off the planet's resources, and are pretty heavily invested in mining and resource-munching; it'll take more than a few underpowered, underarmed, undereducated, poor, politically disenfranchised, cranky Natives with rifles to give them a bad taste in their mouth. Like perhaps a group of cranky PC Natives. But in reality, I would figure that crime syndicates (such as the one run by Mr. Reason from Undercurrents 3) would pose a more forbidable block to [quote-unquote] honest business practices ... they'd be a real problem for the corps, who no doubt find themselves compromised by those black-glove bastards. N'est-ce pas? Sure, the Incorporate are in league with questionable persons and organizations, but too much means trouble. An effective revolutionary tactic - a tried and true method - is to link crime syndicates with a burgeoning resistance movement, driving the corps out of power the old fashioned way. Then the issue is straightening out the standing government. - Monkeygod (8-0) My big secret is gonna hover over your life -Fionna Apple *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Christopher Sakal [c_sakal@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:27 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Well, I think the natives may have more of a home-court advantage than you seem to be giving them credit for. One of the things that made the Viet Cong so effective as a fighting force was that it was impossible to tell them from the ordinary citizens of Vietnam - so American soldiers would be faced with situations like having a random teenage girl suddenly rush at a group oif soldiers with a live grenade in each hand. The natives are, in the most militant conflicts, essentially terrorits trying to inflict enough damage on a corp to make it not worthwhile to continue to mine Longjohn (at least in a certain area). To that end they have a lot of advantages in terms on anonymity that make the fact that the corp has more people and bigger guns less important ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason Hockley [jh39@ukc.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:11 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:54:56 EST EndersWAR1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/8/99 10:22:41 AM Central Standard Time, jh39@ukc.ac.uk > writes: > > << Perhaps a selection of the different > political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? > That way you could have them banding together for survival, > but you still have the possibility of argument and > exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does > anyone else agree with this viewpoint? >> > I would agree in a campaign, of course, but I will put it to you this way, in > my convention going experience, the pregen characters have cool bios, thought > out skill groups and nice, but reasonable gear....and it all goes out the > window 20 seconds after the gamer picks up the sheet. Noone wants to be the > nay-sayer or problem character in a 4-6 hour event. Everyone immediately > buddies up, finds the objective, and goes after it. I was in a very good > Dark Conspiracy game up at Gencon this year, where my characters bio put me > directly in a confrontational position with one of the other characters...he > had for intents and purposes given me a bum leg, destroyed my career and > stolen the love of my life. The Bio said I was a burn out, had become a > wreck of a person and ws prone to fits of violence and depression and that I > HATED this other person. I roleplayed this out the first time our characters > met, I decked him. I was immediately jumped by every other player at the > game...for the rest of the game I was not listened to and generally my > thoughts and ideas on the investigation were ignored, even though I was the > only one in the Group with ANY investigation skills at all! I gave up the > characters main personality just so that I could be PART of the 6 hour event > I had paid to be in...point is, In a campaign where in time 2 people can > learn to live with, or at least handle another person, thats fine and can > bring out some cool roleplaying...but in a con it dosent work. The other > argument is that why would anyone trust their life with some one they don't > trust? The whole reason I hated the D'n'D mainstream "you meet in at a > bar/inn" thing...I dunno about you, but I am not going to go adventure with > someone I meet who is drinking at a bar... Well admittedly my thoughts while writing were of a mini-campaign rather than a convention scenario. Frankly though, it sounds to me like you just got an obnoxious bunch of players in your example. If I've paid for 6 hours of gaming I'm damned well going to get some done, not just throwing character background out the window to solve a bunch of puzzles. If I spend 6 hours arguing with another character and not getting anything useful done I would consider it money well spent as long as both I and the other player enjoyed it. I can see how being excluded entirely from the group would be unpleasant but I don't follow your reasoning that characters with different goals and backgrounds would be the problem. Jason "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gareth Hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:06 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 EndersWAR1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/8/99 10:22:41 AM Central Standard Time, jh39@ukc.ac.uk > writes: > > << Perhaps a selection of the different > political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? > That way you could have them banding together for survival, > but you still have the possibility of argument and > exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does > anyone else agree with this viewpoint? >> > I would agree in a campaign, of course, but I will put it to you this way, in > my convention going experience, the pregen characters have cool bios, thought > out skill groups and nice, but reasonable gear....and it all goes out the > window 20 seconds after the gamer picks up the sheet. Noone wants to be the > nay-sayer or problem character in a 4-6 hour event. Everyone immediately > buddies up, finds the objective, and goes after it. I was in a very good > Dark Conspiracy game up at Gencon this year, where my characters bio put me > directly in a confrontational position with one of the other characters...he > had for intents and purposes given me a bum leg, destroyed my career and > stolen the love of my life. The Bio said I was a burn out, had become a > wreck of a person and ws prone to fits of violence and depression and that I > HATED this other person. I roleplayed this out the first time our characters > met, I decked him. I was immediately jumped by every other player at the > game...for the rest of the game I was not listened to and generally my > thoughts and ideas on the investigation were ignored, even though I was the > only one in the Group with ANY investigation skills at all! I gave up the > characters main personality just so that I could be PART of the 6 hour event That's a badly written con scenario. Interparty conflict is fine, but it shouldn't break up the party unless the scenario is desinged to handle it. There should have either been a reaon for the pcs to work together, or else some lid should have been put on squabbling - like an authority figure or police presenrce or something... Gar *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: EndersWAR1@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:01 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Access Denied Questions... In a message dated 11/8/99 10:49:08 AM Central Standard Time, hanrahag@iol.ie writes: << I'd start characters off on Earth, and then play through the trip to Poseidon. Put the players in the same boat as the characters by making Poseidon unfamiliar to both player and character... >> Thats actually a very viable Idea...I like it! "Come on, Ceasar, if your going to be stupid, don't be half-assed stupid...Be stupid all the way!"-187 x) <---Dead Cyclops Enterprises "In the land of the two-eyed blind, the Dead Cyclops is king." EndersWAR1@aol.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: EndersWAR1@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:56 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied In a message dated 11/8/99 10:31:45 AM Central Standard Time, hanrahag@iol.ie writes: << I'm writing BP scenarios for 3 Irish cons (Vaticon, Warpcon & K2). The first one will be ready within a week, and I'll send a copy to whoever wants it. I'm trying to bring as much of the political stuff in as possible without drowning the players... >> I'd like to see it. "Come on, Ceasar, if your going to be stupid, don't be half-assed stupid...Be stupid all the way!"-187 x) <---Dead Cyclops Enterprises "In the land of the two-eyed blind, the Dead Cyclops is king." EndersWAR1@aol.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: EndersWAR1@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:55 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied In a message dated 11/8/99 10:22:41 AM Central Standard Time, jh39@ukc.ac.uk writes: << Perhaps a selection of the different political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? That way you could have them banding together for survival, but you still have the possibility of argument and exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does anyone else agree with this viewpoint? >> I would agree in a campaign, of course, but I will put it to you this way, in my convention going experience, the pregen characters have cool bios, thought out skill groups and nice, but reasonable gear....and it all goes out the window 20 seconds after the gamer picks up the sheet. Noone wants to be the nay-sayer or problem character in a 4-6 hour event. Everyone immediately buddies up, finds the objective, and goes after it. I was in a very good Dark Conspiracy game up at Gencon this year, where my characters bio put me directly in a confrontational position with one of the other characters...he had for intents and purposes given me a bum leg, destroyed my career and stolen the love of my life. The Bio said I was a burn out, had become a wreck of a person and ws prone to fits of violence and depression and that I HATED this other person. I roleplayed this out the first time our characters met, I decked him. I was immediately jumped by every other player at the game...for the rest of the game I was not listened to and generally my thoughts and ideas on the investigation were ignored, even though I was the only one in the Group with ANY investigation skills at all! I gave up the characters main personality just so that I could be PART of the 6 hour event I had paid to be in...point is, In a campaign where in time 2 people can learn to live with, or at least handle another person, thats fine and can bring out some cool roleplaying...but in a con it dosent work. The other argument is that why would anyone trust their life with some one they don't trust? The whole reason I hated the D'n'D mainstream "you meet in at a bar/inn" thing...I dunno about you, but I am not going to go adventure with someone I meet who is drinking at a bar... "Come on, Ceasar, if your going to be stupid, don't be half-assed stupid...Be stupid all the way!"-187 x) <---Dead Cyclops Enterprises "In the land of the two-eyed blind, the Dead Cyclops is king." EndersWAR1@aol.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gareth Hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:44 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Access Denied Questions... On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jason Hockley wrote: > > Hello once again, > So a new idea occured to me. I'm thinking of making it a > series of games, each one focussing on a few different, or > perhaps intermingled, areas within the game. Natural Law > shows the shadier sides of the Incorporate groups, the GEO, > some of the Justice department and even the weather and > ecology of Poseidon. However, it says less about the > different anti-colonial groups, the way the Natives live, > the Long John mining, the cetaceans and so on... I think I've posted this before, but a friend of mine wants to run a set of introductory games set in the past. Game 1 takes place on board the Calypso, game 2 in the worst days of the Blight, game 3 during the Isolation, and game 4 during the present... It would bring players up to speed on the history of Poseidon in a fairly friendly manner. > So with that in mind, does anyone have any > suggestions for scenario ideas or specific Access Denied > sections that could highlight the various areas that make > Blue Planet such a great game? I'm planning on > pre-generated characters for each of these scenarios too, > I'd start characters off on Earth, and then play through the trip to Poseidon. Put the players in the same boat as the characters by making Poseidon unfamiliar to both player and character... > > Jason Gar posting more than usual *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason Hockley [jh39@ukc.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:38 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:27:00 +0000 (GMT) Gareth Hanrahan wrote: > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jason Hockley wrote: > > Access Denied Space follows... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also read through the Dusk 'Till Dawn scenario, > > and it seemed pretty good. It did strike me though that it > > seems to have too many similarities as it stands to Natural > > Law. There is the same type of killing machine bit, > > Which was tired in Natural Law too...the secret military weapon running > amok is a cliche. Dusk 'til Dawn works a little better, although it does > have the Aborigine Deus Ex Machina bit... Agreed. Which is pretty much why I went on to say that the characters become a little more important in these cases. It may be a bit of a cliche but if you have a variety of character viewpoints you still get their differing reactions to the case, and throw a little bit more into the mix to boot. > > Presumably a Con Scenario is designed to get people > > interested in the game, not as part of an ongoing campaign, > > but it still seems to be lacking a certain element of > > uniqueness to me. To add more of the Blue Planet game into > > it I would think that the characters would need to be > > carefully thought out. Perhaps a selection of the different > > political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? > > That way you could have them banding together for survival, > > but you still have the possibility of argument and > > exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does > > anyone else agree with this viewpoint? > > I'm writing BP scenarios for 3 Irish cons (Vaticon, Warpcon & K2). The > first one will be ready within a week, and I'll send a copy to whoever > wants it. I'm trying to bring as much of the political stuff in as > possible without drowning the players... I would certainly be interested. Even if I've still not managed to get a game together I still love reading Blue Planet stuff. This game really has me hooked. Jason "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason Hockley [jh39@ukc.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:34 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Access Denied Questions... Hello once again, I'm sure this is about the third or fourth time I've asked questions of this kind, as every time I get ready to run a game of Blue Planet the group interested dissolves somehow. Still, I shall forge on ahead as if nothing else I enjoy thinking about these things. Basically, I've moved to a new University and nobody here seems to have heard of the game. I've put out a call for players, intending to run Natural Law as a one-off game to introduce them to it. It struck me though, that however good it may be a single Convention Scenario is unlikely to portray every aspect of the game at its best. So a new idea occured to me. I'm thinking of making it a series of games, each one focussing on a few different, or perhaps intermingled, areas within the game. Natural Law shows the shadier sides of the Incorporate groups, the GEO, some of the Justice department and even the weather and ecology of Poseidon. However, it says less about the different anti-colonial groups, the way the Natives live, the Long John mining, the cetaceans and so on... So with that in mind, does anyone have any suggestions for scenario ideas or specific Access Denied sections that could highlight the various areas that make Blue Planet such a great game? I'm planning on pre-generated characters for each of these scenarios too, if only because the first look at the character generation sheet seemed to put a few people off the idea. I've looked through the books, Undercurrents and the Access Denied booklet and between them all there are roughly 120 Access Denied game hooks. Currently I've just listed each of them but when I get a little more time I intend to include a few more details on the list, such as who they involve and affect and what sort of game it might lead to (i.e. political, survival, investigative). I'm hoping this might help me clarify things a little, but frankly I'm just the sort of person who would do it anyway. Anyway, help would be appreciated and with a little luck this may be sort of in line with all the discussion of possible future convention games. Jason "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:31 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Jim Heivilin wrote: "The Viet Cong weren't more heavily armed than the U.S. and R.V.N. Armies either." True, but there are significant differences between their watery world and Viet Nam. A buncha indigents squatting on the very levels of a hostile-as-in-alien world versus their tech-charged cousins with wealth, power, and better versions of the same tech the indigents use isn't the same as Americans in South Asia. If we're talking home court advantage, there isn't much of one for Natives as I see it. Comparatively so, sure, but not so much as to let them hide, thrive, and successfully strike back. Maybe if they were thriving in the deeps, but the forces of the Incorporate are the ones doing that ... - Monkeygod (8-0) My big secret is gonna hover over your life -Fionna Apple *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gareth Hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:27 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jason Hockley wrote: > Access Denied Space follows... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also read through the Dusk 'Till Dawn scenario, > and it seemed pretty good. It did strike me though that it > seems to have too many similarities as it stands to Natural > Law. There is the same type of killing machine bit, Which was tired in Natural Law too...the secret military weapon running amok is a cliche. Dusk 'til Dawn works a little better, although it does have the Aborigine Deus Ex Machina bit... > Presumably a Con Scenario is designed to get people > interested in the game, not as part of an ongoing campaign, > but it still seems to be lacking a certain element of > uniqueness to me. To add more of the Blue Planet game into > it I would think that the characters would need to be > carefully thought out. Perhaps a selection of the different > political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? > That way you could have them banding together for survival, > but you still have the possibility of argument and > exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does > anyone else agree with this viewpoint? I'm writing BP scenarios for 3 Irish cons (Vaticon, Warpcon & K2). The first one will be ready within a week, and I'll send a copy to whoever wants it. I'm trying to bring as much of the political stuff in as possible without drowning the players... > Jason > Gar *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason Hockley [jh39@ukc.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:17 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6, possible Access Denied On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:59:05 -0600 "Heivilin, Jim" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gareth hanrahan [mailto:hanrahag@iol.ie] > > Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6 > > > > At least one of the links pointing to this issue (from the what's new > > page) is broken... > > The issue's at http://www.biohazardgames.com/issue-five-six.pdf > > > You can also find a link at http://www.biohazardgames.com/files.html and at > http://www.biohazardgames.com/sitemap.html. I checked and both work. > > I don't know what the problem was. I checked the syntax and it appeared > correct, however the link on the What's New page didn't work. I eventually, > after puzzling over it for a bit, erased what was there and retyped it > exactly as it was before. This appeared to fix the problem. There may have > been some formatting left behind or perhaps a transparent ACSII character. > > I suspect unknown entities on the other side of the wormhole were attempting > to reclaim their lost information. We have, yet again, foiled their > dastardly plot to worm their way into our universe. Hrm. I managed to get it alright, though I think I may have gone through the Site Map. It's certainly an excellent issue. I particularly liked the anthropological analysis of the Storm Widow myth, and the section on the Children of the Widow. Access Denied Space follows... I also read through the Dusk 'Till Dawn scenario, and it seemed pretty good. It did strike me though that it seems to have too many similarities as it stands to Natural Law. There is the same type of killing machine bit, although unlike in Natural Law this time the players will probably not have the option of making friends with it. It seems to me that it covers the same sort of areas. Presumably a Con Scenario is designed to get people interested in the game, not as part of an ongoing campaign, but it still seems to be lacking a certain element of uniqueness to me. To add more of the Blue Planet game into it I would think that the characters would need to be carefully thought out. Perhaps a selection of the different political groups of viewpoints throughout the player group? That way you could have them banding together for survival, but you still have the possibility of argument and exploration of some of the other aspects of the game. Does anyone else agree with this viewpoint? Jason "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:09 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Betty [mailto:bbetty@glad.org] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") > > Rich [banzai@missouri.edu] writes: "Possession is 9/10ths the > law. Unless soemeone else is stronger." > > Isn't that the issue? I mean, isn't the issue that the > Incorporates and their ilk *are* stronger? Natives aren't > heavily armed, at least not in comparison to their enemies. > The Viet Cong weren't more heavily armed than the U.S. and R.V.N. Armies either. Jim Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:08 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Flame the newbie! > -----Original Message----- > From: Atti2dboy@aol.com [mailto:Atti2dboy@aol.com] > Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Flame the newbie! > > In a message dated 11/3/99 7:11:20 AM, banzai@missouri.edu writes: > Sure, but the rule book is also lacking in ground vehicles > although many of the islands are big enough for them to be > useful. They would use less fuel than the VTOL's and if they > run out of power the pilot does not have to worry about the > lack of glide characteristics. :) > The would also be less complex (somewhat) which means there would be a smaller chance of failure over time (slightly more reliable), especially for a situation where there wasn't reliable parts replacement or maintenance. > Since the extreme weather caused by a lack of large land masses does > not seem to be a concern in the game (although I have not > read the section on geography and weather), I see no reason to favor > hydrofoils over more traditional boat hulls. > It would require less energy to cover the same distance since there would be less drag. Hydrofoils would be cheaper in the long run. The only concern with hydrofoils over traditional hulls would (again) be maintenance and weather. In general hydrofoils may not weather storms quite as well as traditional boats. Extreme weather is a great concern. I'll leave it to others to illuminate. Jim Jim Heivilin, Project Manager Systems & Applications Group, IAT Services University of Missouri at Columbia mailto:banzai@missouri.edu, 884-3898 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:59 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6 > -----Original Message----- > From: gareth hanrahan [mailto:hanrahag@iol.ie] > Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents 5/6 > > At least one of the links pointing to this issue (from the what's new > page) is broken... > The issue's at http://www.biohazardgames.com/issue-five-six.pdf > You can also find a link at http://www.biohazardgames.com/files.html and at http://www.biohazardgames.com/sitemap.html. I checked and both work. I don't know what the problem was. I checked the syntax and it appeared correct, however the link on the What's New page didn't work. I eventually, after puzzling over it for a bit, erased what was there and retyped it exactly as it was before. This appeared to fix the problem. There may have been some formatting left behind or perhaps a transparent ACSII character. I suspect unknown entities on the other side of the wormhole were attempting to reclaim their lost information. We have, yet again, foiled their dastardly plot to worm their way into our universe. Jim Jim Heivilin Webmaster, Biohazard Games http://www.biohazardgames.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:58 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Andrew wrote: "Possession is 9/10ths of the law. And big guns are the other 9/10ths." A good rpg hook, that. "Protect the hearth." How do you do it when you don't seem to have any leverage? No paid attorneys, disdain from the authorities, ineffective weapons or simply undergunned: there's a challenge. Think of it as the "Goonies" paradox - how do the powerless get power? Just remember your judo lessons and apply what minimal force you have at the right point, and your opponent's momentum does all the work for you. The trick to to let the players dig up the right point. Incidentally, this is usually the storyline of most computer RPGs I've played. - Monkeygod (8-0) Illegitimi non carborundum. "My God, aren't we all spoilt children of the bourgeoisie? If the bourgeoisie hadn't made a botch of us, we wouldn't need to kill them." - Raf the Jackal, "A Good Old-Fashioned Future" (Bruce Sterling) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Andrew Pearce [ajp@dcs.qmw.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:34 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Brian Betty wrote: > > Rich [banzai@missouri.edu] writes: "Possession is 9/10ths the law. Unless > soemeone else is stronger." > > Isn't that the issue? I mean, isn't the issue that the Incorporates and > their ilk *are* stronger? Natives aren't heavily armed, at least not in > comparison to their enemies. > "Possession is 9/10ths of the law. And big guns are the other 9/10ths." Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Brian Betty [bbetty@glad.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:17 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Landsrechts (was "Flame the newbie!") Rich [banzai@missouri.edu] writes: "Possession is 9/10ths the law. Unless soemeone else is stronger." Isn't that the issue? I mean, isn't the issue that the Incorporates and their ilk *are* stronger? Natives aren't heavily armed, at least not in comparison to their enemies. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.