Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tekumel] Re: Gardásiyal marriage question

Expand Messages
  • Tim O'Brien
    That s West End s D6 system for Star Wars, and there was a simple (even primitive) generic release, and a much later more developed set of D6 books for
    Message 1 of 38 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      That's West End's D6 system for Star Wars, and there was a simple (even primitive) generic release, and a much later more developed set of D6 books for specific genres.


      (Signed, former West End writer.)
      _____
      TSOB




      ________________________________
      From: Loren <theunderminer@...>
      To: tekumel@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 12:44:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [tekumel] Re: Gardásiyal marriage question


      I'd think Earthdawn might be a better fit for Tekumel than Shadowrun. I'd actually tried working up a system using the "D6" system used in Mayfair's original Star Wars game. Unfortunately I stopped working on it when "Gardasiyal" came out.

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      From: Alva Hardison <alvahardison@ yahoo.com>
      To: tekumel@yahoogroups .com
      Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 11:35:41 AM
      Subject: Re: [tekumel] Re: Gardásiyal marriage question

      Thanks, yes I agree that is why after dealing with the situation myself, I've been converting the ShadowRun system for Tekumel use. One of my players ran a game sort of like Tekumel & DnD combined using ShadowRun and the system flowed quick and easy with little problems after we go use to it.

      --- On Thu, 10/29/09, MarkSief <siefertma@wi. rr.com> wrote:

      From: MarkSief <siefertma@wi. rr.com>
      Subject: [tekumel] Re: Gardásiyal marriage question
      To: tekumel@yahoogroups .com
      Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 7:38 PM

      I guess what I mean was that with the exception of the original EPT, the published, "official" rules--from Swords & Glory to T:EPT--seemed too heavy and cumbersome for my taste. I don't feel that you need reams upon reams of rules to play a role playing game, even one with a setting as rich and chocolatey as Tekumel.

      Mark

      --- In tekumel@yahoogroups .com, Alva Hardison <alvahardison@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Mark, please define "needless crunch" for me. Alva
      >
      > --- On Tue, 10/27/09, MarkSief <siefertma@. ..> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: MarkSief <siefertma@. ..>
      > Subject: [tekumel] Re: Gardásiyal marriage question
      > To: tekumel@yahoogroups .com
      > Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 2:17 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi Jeff:
      >
      > Just thought I'd throw in my support for a Tekumel/Pocket Universe game. While my rules preference currently bend toward converting EPT to Savage Worlds, I stand behind anyone who is working with mechanics that take most of of the needless "crunch" seen in previous Tekumel-related games. Please let us know how you're doing and if you need any help.
      >
      > Cordially,
      > Mark A. Siefert
      >
      > P.S. BTW, I'm also a fan of a certain Austin-based podcast you frequently co-host and and enjoy your contributions greatly. Let Matt, Russel, Don, Tracie, et al. know they are doing a great job!
      >
      > --- In tekumel@yahoogroups .com, "uni_games" <unigames@ .> wrote:
      > >
      > > Kenneth Oswald wrote:
      > >
      > > > Sounds like you could do this:
      > > >
      > > > d10
      > > > *Result*
      > > > 1-5 = Never Married
      > > > 6 = Widowed
      > > > 7 = 1 Spouse (don't forget, this may include Aridani...)
      > > > 8 = 2 Spouses
      > > > 9 = 3 Spouses
      > > > 10 = 4 Spouses
      > >
      > > You certainly could - it does seem more sensible to resolve it all in a single die roll.
      > >
      > > I'm still wondering whether there is any 'official' answer?
      > >
      > > > Now Jeff, how about that Pocket Universe Tekumel supplement?
      > >
      > > I'm back to work on it, after getting sidetracked on Barsoom for Pocket Universe for a few months. I just finished converting the Tekumel magic items, though I still need to work up PU stats for the various demons and critters that those items can call up. My next big task after that is to convert the rest of the Temple spells (Universal and Generic are finished, but so far I've only converted Temple level spells for Ksarul and Wuru, 'cuz my players needed 'em).
      > >
      > > -Jeff Dee
      > >
      > > PS: Has anyone else noticed the parallels between Barsoom and Tekumel? Warlike culture. Red skin. Frequent nudity. Science & swordplay. Two moons. Multi-legged critters. Network of ancient public works (canals / sakbe roads). Coincidence? Of course Tekumel has MUCH more detail, and is much better thought out. I'm just sayin', I'll bet Burroughs was one of the professor's major influences.
      > >
      > > > Ken.O.
      > > >
      > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:22 AM, uni_games <unigames@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > There appears to be a discrepancy regarding marriage on page 17 of Part
      > > > > One: Growing Up On Tékumel.
      > > > >
      > > > > A table is given which the player is to roll on if they wish their
      > > > > character to be married. "A score within the ranges listed there shows that
      > > > > you have a spouse". However, the rules also call for a d10 roll to determine
      > > > > the number of spouses, with a result of 1-6 indicating "none".
      > > > >
      > > > > Is this an error? Or does "no spouses" for a married character indicate
      > > > > that a spouse has died? Or that the character is engaged, but not yet
      > > > > married? Or is it simply intended that marriage should be very, very rare
      > > > > for beginning player characters?
      > > > >
      > > > > I realize that this question is of no cosmic importance, but I wondered
      > > > > whether others had come across this issue, and how they resolved it.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks!
      > > > > -Jeff Dee
      > > > > UNIgames
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > Continually hopeful there's an elegant line between egotism and cynicism...
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kenneth Oswald
      I was just sympathizing, Mark - I m actually all for simplicity, my own system has very few rules at all. And Jeff Dee is, after all, the creator of TWERPS
      Message 38 of 38 , Nov 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I was just sympathizing, Mark - I'm actually all for simplicity, my own
        system has very few rules at all. And Jeff Dee is, after all, the creator
        of TWERPS and Pocket Universe, so I know he eres on the side of the simple
        as well.

        On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Mark A. Siefert <siefertma@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Whoa! Who's ranting? I merely expressed a preference for simpler rules
        > and my opinion that the rules of previous Tekumel-related games (with
        > the exception of EPT) were overly-complex for my tastes. That was not in
        > anyway intended as a shot at game designers. They choose to create the
        > games that suited the idea of how Tekumel games should be run. Fine.
        > They're just not my thing.
        >
        > Personally, I think it would be a good move if the Tekumel Foundation
        > make it easy as possible for fans to produce products based on setting.
        > Let a million Tekumel game bloom and let the fans (old, and hopefully
        > new) decide!
        >
        > Mark
        >
        >
        > Kenneth Oswald wrote:
        > > HAHAHAHA, oh my - I'm going to apologize to Jeff for all this crunch
        > > bashing! Mechanics are a labor of true love for designers and its a blow
        > > when someone rants on 'em!!! I'm an artist and a game designer, and my
        > > players ragging on a mechanic is every bit the blow that going through a
        > > critique was in my college and grad school art classes.
        > >
        > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:58 AM, uni_games <unigames@...<unigames%40io.com>>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >> "Thomas Worthington" wrote:
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>> Fluff is a pejorative term coined by certain types of power
        > >>> gamers to emphasise what they see as the important parts of
        > >>> gaming: min/maxing which is, of course, regarded as "crunch"
        > >>> - ie, important and vital.
        > >>>
        > >> Huh. I clearly have a higher opinion of game mechanics than you do, but
        > I
        > >> never saw the term "fluff" as pejorative.
        > >>
        > >> To me, "fluff" has always meant the "nice" stuff, the "appealing" stuff,
        > >> while "crunch" has always meant the cold, hard, mechanical stuff. It's
        > >> necessary for my style of play, but it's not the reason why I'm there.
        > >>
        > >> A good set of game mechanics never convinced me to play in a setting
        > that I
        > >> didn't like. A BAD set of game mechanics can (and has) gotten in the way
        > of
        > >> my enjoyment of a good setting, though.
        > >>
        > >> But yeah, people need to grow up and stop denigrating one another's play
        > >> styles. What a trivial issue to get all riled up about!
        > >>
        > >> -Jeff Dee
        > >> UNIgames
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Continually hopeful there's an elegant line between egotism and cynicism...


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.