--- In wushurpg@..., "Dev Purkayastha"
<dev.purkayastha@g...> wrote:
>
> Hey there. I've read TSOY and played Wushu, so let me toss in my cents.

Hi Dev, same here, same here ;)

> Here's what I'd do with Keys: If you feel you fulfilled your Key in a
> round, you can bank 1 Held Die into that key, storing up a max of 3
> Held Dice in each one (that you can unleash for a bigger bonus, or
> even hand out to others as a bonus). For a buyoff, you can scratch off
> the key and get a one-time boost of 5 Held Dice to use however, but
> they're only usable in the context of this conflict. Finally, you can
> buy new Keys for 1 Chi each.

Sounds pretty interesting, but would increase bookkeeping -- not much,
though. How would you handle the Keys exactly? Would you say that each
successful application of a Key yields one Held Die, or would you do
it more TSOY-like, giving the player the more dice (XP) the more
complicated the situation gets? I'd go with option #1, one application
of a Key is one Held Die.

Slowly, he touched the keyboard of his laptop, the screen flickering
in the darkness/just seconds ago, he had clicked on the "Join this
Group" button/and within moments, he had been taken into the secret
virtual lair of this group called "wushurpg"/tentatively, he typed a
word: "Hello"/he gulped down the rest of his drink/too late now; this
was no time for cowards/he continued, typing with two fingers/"Hello.
My name is Norbert G. Matausch, I'm a 35 year-old German, roleplayer
since 1984 and think Wushu is friggin' cool. I just wanted to say hi
to you all and I'm looking forward to being a member of this group."

:)

Hey there. I've read TSOY and played Wushu, so let me toss in my cents.

(BTW, if you're not familiar with The Shadow of Yesterday, it's
CreativeCommons licensed! So you can read the game free online[1], or
check out the free version of the stripped-down, quasigeneric form of
the system [2]. I've read the latter myself.)

I think that TSOY has a number of interesting mechanics. Stuff that I
think is cool:

* There's XP, but most importantly is about *how* you gain XP, i.e. by
hitting on the self-identified Keys that define your character.
(Example: Key of Cowardice, get 1 XP for each time you're cowardly.)
There's also a feature to these keys called buyoff, where you get a
big one-time XP bonus (and strike the Key from your sheet) if you
choose to do something that goes against your Key. (Example:
Buyoff=10XP for standing your ground in a deadly situation.)

* You also have these important resource pools, and the only way to
refresh them is by engaging in some possibly conflict-ridden way with
the other players. (So a social challenge, a mental challenge, a
physical challenge.)

* There are things called "Secrets", but to some extent they're just a
bit like neat powerups that let you do cool things.

* Bringing Down the Pain, which is more or less like going into
bullettime. You break down your action into rounds of conflict, and
the stakes can change in the middle if you've got the advantage (from
"I graze him with my bow" to "I take down him and all his guards").

Beyond that, there's the fudgelike scale of abilities. So which of
these things do you want to port into Wushu? (Or vice versa?)

Here's what I'd do with Keys: If you feel you fulfilled your Key in a
round, you can bank 1 Held Die into that key, storing up a max of 3
Held Dice in each one (that you can unleash for a bigger bonus, or
even hand out to others as a bonus). For a buyoff, you can scratch off
the key and get a one-time boost of 5 Held Dice to use however, but
they're only usable in the context of this conflict. Finally, you can
buy new Keys for 1 Chi each.

     -d

[1] http://www.anvilwerks.com/?The-Shadow-of-Yesterday
[2] http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html

First off, I realize that many people think Wushu is
just fine the way it is.

For those that don't however, how do you think it
would be blending together Wushu and TSOY (The Shadows
of Yesterday)?

The new version of TSOY is a Fudge based/derived
implementation. It's scale is about similar to Wushu.
It comes with XP and all those other bits that people
seem to want.

At the end of the day, one of the _primary_ things
that makes Wushu what it is, is the PoNT (Principle of
Narrative Truth). Along with dice cap and dice based
on description. Anyone with experience care to
comment? I haven't had a chance to actually try
assembling this yet, and it'd be nice to know what
people think before I do.

Oh, and before someone suggests it... No, I didn't
post this to rpgent, and did not do so very
deliberately. My only other tentative idea was
dismissed immediately, and I'm interested in actually
trying to discuss this one.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

No, the pages were already formatted for landscape, and I printed them
landscape.  I can't remember how I moved it (Maybe I just shrunk it a
little), but I made an extra half-inch along the top edge.  Perfectly
usable.

This from someone who depsises electronic formats and ordinarilty
refuses to buy 'em.

--- In wushurpg@..., "Travis" <tensider@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Two questions on your solution:
>
> 1) Did that create portrait-oriented pages, or did you have
> landscape pages with a larger gutter on the left side? I'm shooting
> for the former.
>
> 2) If it did create portrait-oriented pages, where did you change
> the guttering? I can't find any options in Acrobat Pro that will
> allow me to change the document properties.
>
> Thanks!
> travis
>
>
>
> --- In wushurpg@..., "John" <longspeak@c...> wrote:
> >
> > My copies weren't formatted for the screen, but for landscaped
> letter-
> > sized paper.  I simply set the gutter an bit higher on one edge
> for
> > the hole-punch and printed 'em out.
> >
> > John
> >
>

Hi John,

Two questions on your solution:

1) Did that create portrait-oriented pages, or did you have
landscape pages with a larger gutter on the left side? I'm shooting
for the former.

2) If it did create portrait-oriented pages, where did you change
the guttering? I can't find any options in Acrobat Pro that will
allow me to change the document properties.

Thanks!
travis



--- In wushurpg@..., "John" <longspeak@c...> wrote:
>
> My copies weren't formatted for the screen, but for landscaped
letter-
> sized paper.  I simply set the gutter an bit higher on one edge
for
> the hole-punch and printed 'em out.
>
> John
>

My copies weren't formatted for the screen, but for landscaped letter-
sized paper.  I simply set the gutter an bit higher on one edge for
the hole-punch and printed 'em out.

John

--- In wushurpg@..., "Travis" <tensider@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>   This is my first time posting here, but some of you may know me
> as "travis" on RPGnet.
>
>   I'm printing as much of the Wushu resources that I can find
online
> and assembling them into a binder. I purchased all of the Wushu Fu
> titles from RPGnow, only to discover that they have been formatted
for
> the screen. This will make it tough to bind, and contrasts with the
> portrait orientation for all of the other material.
>
>   I looked in Acrobat Pro 7.0 for a way to change the orientation
of
> the page while preserving the text. No luck (or I just don't see
the
> solution).
>
>   Has anyone experienced this problem? If so, how did you get
around
> it without a lot of cut & paste?
>
> cheers,
> travis
>

Hi all,

   This is my first time posting here, but some of you may know me
as "travis" on RPGnet.

   I'm printing as much of the Wushu resources that I can find online
and assembling them into a binder. I purchased all of the Wushu Fu
titles from RPGnow, only to discover that they have been formatted for
the screen. This will make it tough to bind, and contrasts with the
portrait orientation for all of the other material.

   I looked in Acrobat Pro 7.0 for a way to change the orientation of
the page while preserving the text. No luck (or I just don't see the
solution).

   Has anyone experienced this problem? If so, how did you get around
it without a lot of cut & paste?

cheers,
travis

BTW, I added the sheet to the group's file section. Enjoy.

Ben B.

LoL.

Yeah, well, my group's games have always been on the cinematic side,
so we've been naturally attracted to rules-light, fast paced
systems... We've never tried anything quite like this, though, so I
can't say how well it'll work for us yet. I don't think I'll have any
objections, at least if we try it out on a one-shot scale, but whether
the players can use the system to its full potential, i.e. get more
narrative detail into the action instead of just reverting to 'I hit
the bad guy' mode, is a completely different question...

And as for traits and weaknesses, I just like to keep things
flexible... One 'distiction', as you put it, might be fine for one
character, but a couple of more specific flaws might suit another
better, and I want to keep that option open. I like systems that are
very flexible and suited for many different types of characters, and
Wushu certainly has that potential.

But I'm just repeating myself, so I'll shut up. If anyone has more to
say about my character sheet, feedback's always welcome... (But I
probably won't make changes to it until I've at least used it once...)


Ben B.




--- In wushurpg@..., "Nicholas Novitski"
<nicknovitski@g...> wrote:
>
> Ha!  That'll teach me to make assumptions.  Your reasoned response has
> revealed the ugly arrogance hidden behind my kind words.
>
> On 4/8/06, Ben B. Bainton <ben@b...> wrote:
> >
> > I totally agree with you. And, as a GM, I don't really give a rats ass
> > about what numbers players have written on their sheets. However,
> > players love juggling numbers. Well, mine do anyway. ;)
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> Well, I'm glad they like Wushu, then!  Or, rather, I sure hope they
will.
>
> Certainly, everyone's welcome to their tastes and preferences.  But,
nothing
> can be all things to all people.  I have a friend who has bravely
vouchsafed
> to me that he cannot play Wushu, because it doesn't have the
shopping-list
> particularity that he so loves.  After a long, depressing while, I
realized
> that there was nothing I could actually do.  Changing the game to
fit him
> would have changed it into another game, which would not have been
as fun
> for him as a game focused from the start of its design on what he likes.
> Changing the person might be possible in the case of people who are
knocking
> it before they tried it, but this is someone who tried it and knows
> themselves pretty well.  Having accepted this, I moved on to playing the
> game with people who liked it.
>
> I think Wushu is such a great game as to be nearly ideal for me and
many,
> many other people.  Some of those people might not even know it yet.
  But
> not everyone will be able to play it and have fun at the same time.
>
> Also, do check out the wiki for info on adding a little more crunch
to the
> game.  Some of the rules mods are pretty swank.
>
>
> Also, I'd like to keep the number of weaknesses flexible. While a few
> > positive traits might well be enough to portray different aspects of a
> > character, I feel that limiting characters' weaknesses to one may not
> > work in all cases... Depending of course on the style and setting and
> > how specific you want weaknesses to be, etc...
>
>
> Ahh.  You've hit on it in that last bit.  In my games, weaknesses are
> indistinguishable in their descriptions from any other trait.  Actually,
> I've taken to calling them Distinctions, to leave out the "Can't
ever" or
> "Vulnerable to" that people seem to like to sneak in.  Un-entertainingly
> specific for me.  Even leaving the mechanics otherwise untouched,
just the
> name change has made for some much more interesting characters.  It got
> people away from (what I think of as) the Gurps approach to character
> limitations.  Many disadvantages from other systems are entirely
> uninteresting.  King Kong doesn't have the disadvantage "Berserk,"
he has
> the Distinction "In All the World, Unique."  Only one of these can
have a
> full-length movie of emotional depth based on them.
>
> ...And the problem with my saying that is that 'uninteresting' is
relative
> to me.  Some people seem to like what I don't.  Shocking, I know.
>
> - Nick
>

--- In wushurpg@..., "Nicholas Novitski"
<nicknovitski@g...> wrote:
>
> Hey, Ben!  Nice to have you join us.
>
> On 4/7/06, Ben B. Bainton <ben@b...> wrote:
> >
> > As for now, there's space for several weaknesses, as I prefer a system
> > where the players can pick additional weaknesses for extra trait
> > points.
>
>
> I notice that you say you haven't got the chance to run Wushu yet.
Don't
> take this the wrong way, since many people (like me) went through
the same
> phase of mental disconnect at some time or another, but: You don't
actually
> ever need 'more' points.  Any one Wushu character can be more
powerful, less
> powerful, or exactly as powerful as any other Wushu character, no matter
> what 'point totals' they have.


I totally agree with you. And, as a GM, I don't really give a rats ass
about what numbers players have written on their sheets. However,
players love juggling numbers. Well, mine do anyway. ;)

Also, I'd like to keep the number of weaknesses flexible. While a few
positive traits might well be enough to portray different aspects of a
character, I feel that limiting characters' weaknesses to one may not
work in all cases... Depending of course on the style and setting and
how specific you want weaknesses to be, etc...

I just like to keep all bases covered, as they say. :) Anyways,
feedback is always welcome.

Ben B.

Hiya!

I'm new here, and I've yet to try Wushu in action, but I must say I
like the idea behind it... I've been trying to think of a really
cinematic system for a long time, but I think this comes the closest
to it I've ever seen...

Anyway, I was bored last night so I whipped up this little character
sheet. As I'm not yet sure as to the exact house rules I'd be playing
with when I'll get around to actually running a Wushu game, this may
change in the future...

As for now, there's space for several weaknesses, as I prefer a system
where the players can pick additional weaknesses for extra trait
points. Also, the box for tracking chi has numbers up to six, in case
additional points are needed for some purpose. (I know I'll want to
have chi use a bit more dynamic than just a hit point replacement, but
as of yet I'm not exactly sure what I'll do with it.)

Anyways, you can grab the sheet, in PDF, here:
http://www.bossbattle.net/home/rpg/wushu_sheet_a4.pdf

It's in A4 size (as that's the paper size used here), and prints two
character sheets per sheet of paper. (Meaning the sheet is actually in
A5 size, which seems convinient enough for me...)


Enjoy,

Ben B.

Oh, how i love improvised adventures... The best sessions i had as a
GM even now all of them had as much planning as saying to the
players "You're in city X. What you wanna do?". Proably that's why i
love so much games like Wushu or Risus, as they make it easier to
make NPCs stats out of nowhere ^^.

But ansering the main question. I may be wrong about this - and if i
am, feel free to correct me - but i think the Narrative Truth
principle works for both the players AND the GM. That is, if the
players can dictate NPCs actions when they're kicking their ass, so
can you when you it's the opposite situation. And this goes for the
Mooks fights and for the Nemesis fights as well.

As for the thing "you can't cut off his arm", this is barely
discussed in the open rules; players can't "kill" the Nemesis until
he have no Chi points left (when the GM can let them do the
finishing blow and all). "Kill", in an RPG, of course, means
more "make him unable to battle" more then actually "killing him";
that is, if the fact of losing an arm will put the Nemesis out of
battle, you have all the right to veto that detail. But in Wushu, as
far as i'm concerned, having just one arm rarely means not being
able to keep fighting...

But the real thing is, to a Wushu game to run really well, it's
necessary for the players and GM to be in tune to what's apropriate
to the game, so that this kind of thing doesn't got to happen. It's
proably one of the biggest concerns many people have with this kind
of mostly narrative based rules, where the players can decide what
to do or to be without much concern with mechanics. I know we had
this kind of problem here in Brazil not so long ago, with a very
sucessful game system that had some common principles, but that did
get a lot of bad critics and concerns because of the same thing.

--- In wushurpg@..., "Andrew Dr Rotwang! Reyes"
<areyes@k...> wrote:
>
> ##NOTE: This message was originally posted to RPG.Net, in modified
> form. ##
>
> Well, I just ran a totally impromptu game of Wushu for my group.
(Two
> of the five players couldn't make it, so the Serenity game will
hafta
> wait for next week.)
>
> It went OK; they really had fun being able to describe their cool
> stuff without fear of, you know, rolling a bunch of dingus and
failing
> at it all. For me, though, it was a pretty big paradigm shift -- it
> seemed a totally different way of running a game.  To wit:
>
> I wasn't sure how to describe Chi loss. Since everything happens
just
> the way the players say it does, I was just adding descriptions to
> account for damage taken -- which felt kind of shoehorned it. "I
flip
> him over, throw him to the ground and kick him in the ribs! Oh, I
got
> 2 yang successes and no yin." "Okay...another guy tugs you by the
> shoulder and punches you in the face." I couldn't get it in there
> smoothly.  Like I say, it felt awkward.
>
> Also, I stumbled a bit during a Nemesis battle.  It wasn't a rules
> problem; it was a matter of describing the Nemesis' actions without
> violating the Principle of Narrative Truth.  In other words, it was
> hard not to say, basically, "Oh, yeah?  Well he's gonna DODGE, so
you
> CAN'T cut his arm off!"
>
> That said, I think we all enjoyed the game, even though I was
totally
> making it up and had NO PLOT AT ALL.  Still, like I said, everyone
got
> to thump some rumps without fear of failure.
>
> Any suggestions on how to work around my problems?  Thanks in
advance!
>

##NOTE: This message was originally posted to RPG.Net, in modified
form. ##

Well, I just ran a totally impromptu game of Wushu for my group. (Two
of the five players couldn't make it, so the Serenity game will hafta
wait for next week.)

It went OK; they really had fun being able to describe their cool
stuff without fear of, you know, rolling a bunch of dingus and failing
at it all. For me, though, it was a pretty big paradigm shift -- it
seemed a totally different way of running a game.  To wit:

I wasn't sure how to describe Chi loss. Since everything happens just
the way the players say it does, I was just adding descriptions to
account for damage taken -- which felt kind of shoehorned it. "I flip
him over, throw him to the ground and kick him in the ribs! Oh, I got
2 yang successes and no yin." "Okay...another guy tugs you by the
shoulder and punches you in the face." I couldn't get it in there
smoothly.  Like I say, it felt awkward.

Also, I stumbled a bit during a Nemesis battle.  It wasn't a rules
problem; it was a matter of describing the Nemesis' actions without
violating the Principle of Narrative Truth.  In other words, it was
hard not to say, basically, "Oh, yeah?  Well he's gonna DODGE, so you
CAN'T cut his arm off!"

That said, I think we all enjoyed the game, even though I was totally
making it up and had NO PLOT AT ALL.  Still, like I said, everyone got
to thump some rumps without fear of failure.

Any suggestions on how to work around my problems?  Thanks in advance!

Daniel's got it, though I wouldn't count those extra Details against their pool
limit. I'd handle
the chargen stuff separately, since you're providing Details for Trait points,
not for dice to roll
on the related action.

It's explained on page 22 (as your PDF viewing counts), under "Going Insane."

--Dan

> In "The Fringe" there is a part, in one of the examples of play, that
> goes something like this: "There is nothing about burglary in his
> character description, and he wants more than 2 dice, so he spends 2
> points to create a new Trait called Burglary (4).  He now owes the GM
> 2 Details to explain his new Trait".
>
> I can't seem to find the rules for this seemingly on-the-fly character
> creation anywhere.  Did I miss something?  Can somebody point be to
> where I can find this rules if they exist?  I think this is a pretty
> cool concept because games can start instantly, with only a quick
> decision on character concept.

Well, it's wushu, there are only so many mechanics, so you can probably
fill in the details pretty easily.

Characters have 6 points to spend on traits at 1 for 1, starting at the
default 2.  Save some for use during play if you like.

If, during play, you decide you need a trait, and it fits in your
background, use some of your untrained points.  Your narration must
include a flashback, discussion with other characters, or some other set
of details equal to the points you just spent, to say where it came from.

For instance, you spend 2 points to acquire burglary 4.
"Earl bends down and peers at the lock.  He pulls out his picks and goes
to work, squinting at the tiny keyhole.  "Did you know you can take
correspondance courses in prison?  They're required by law to let you,
even if it's a locksmithing course," he continues, as the cylinder turns
smoothly and he eases the door open, revealing the darkness inside."

Our of a 5 detail narration, two (prison, locksmithing) go toward
acquiring the trait, the other three plus the base die are rolled against
his new trait of Burglary (4) to open the lock.

--
Daniel McSorley

In "The Fringe" there is a part, in one of the examples of play, that
goes something like this: "There is nothing about burglary in his
character description, and he wants more than 2 dice, so he spends 2
points to create a new Trait called Burglary (4).  He now owes the GM
2 Details to explain his new Trait".

I can't seem to find the rules for this seemingly on-the-fly character
creation anywhere.  Did I miss something?  Can somebody point be to
where I can find this rules if they exist?  I think this is a pretty
cool concept because games can start instantly, with only a quick
decision on character concept.

I've started a serial Pulp-Fu game and I plan to
post an Actual Play report after each session.

Here's the link:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=235815

L8r, --Dan

Good points all.


> Escherwolf...who has no mooks to call his own...
>
I have two mooks.  But they prefer to be referred to as my "Son &
Daughter."  And they're insolent, so I might have to have them
liquidated.

LT

--- In wushurpg@..., "John" <longspeak@c...> wrote:

> These are all cool ideas, but here's my problem:
>
> In Wushu, the Mook exists to be smacked around by the Heroes.  A
Mook
> is born with a target on his chest, a glass jaw, poor hand-eye
> coordination.  One bullet in three has his name on it.  He's a
> distraction, not even worthy to be called an obstacle unless he can
> get a dozen or more of his Mook buddies to join the fight.

Agreed. In my defence, I'll say that these guys are meant as an
occassional Friday Night special, not as good as a nemesis, buut
better than the average mook. In play, I find the extra challenge can
keep players on their toes without deprotagonising them...
>
> Introducing any of these sneaky things seems to run counter to that
> philosophy.  Most of your ideas can inspire some interesting
> narration, but I don't know that any mechanical changes are needed
in
> most of the cases.  Just up the threat rating and add some
flavorful
> dialogue.

Again, that can work, and its not for me to say which is the best way
to do things. The mechanics I suggest are basically me playing
around, and can be used or discarded to taste. The tactics, even as
straight narrative special effects are useful - I know a guy who
tried a game similar to Wushu, but was never able to describe a mook
fight in any terms other than a group of mooks show up and start
fighting. These ideas are suggestions that can aid in adding
variation to mook fights...


> > 1.The Sniper mook:
> >
> This guy makes a great Lesser Nemesis.  Give him a single vitality
> point and whatever traits you think fit best.  The Sniper
gets "Long
> Distance Killing" at 4 or 5.
>
Yep, I considered doing that, but in the end I wanted to keep him as
a mook that was just harder to get to (or be aware of). Half the fun
is figuring out midfight that there is a sniper. Once found and
reached, he just essentially falls over...

> > 2. The bait mooks:
> >
> The GM can just set low mook rating and after all the rating points
> are gone say, "One mook is still standing, and he bolts."  If the
> heroes run after him, he leads them to a bunch more mooks.

Yep, I'd use that.

> > 3. The Mooks behind a physical trap.
> >
> Give the trap a separate obstacle rating.  Depending on the nature
of
> the trap, the heroes might have to overcome it before they can get
to
> the mooks, or might have to pick *which one* they roll against each
> round.
>
> This works for a Nemesis, too.  Dr. Evil has his trap door to the
> flaming pit.
>
> > 4. Mooks who give their power to remaining mooks.
> >
> The GM Just assigns a high threat rating and narrates after each
> round, "There are still some Mooks, and these look even tougher!"
>
Yeah, that might be a better way to go. I need to play around with
that concept a bit more...

> > 5.Shapechanging mooks.
> >
> High threat rating.

It can work that way, but I prefer to give them yin/yang addon. You
know, in werewolf form its harder to hurt them, and their claws do
much more damage (and they move faster, a factor for both attack and
defence)
>
> > 6. Mooks that can be hurt only by conditional attacks
> >
> I'd allow this.  The Heroes then waste all their Yin successes when
> they fight these Mooks, until they can figure out the weakness!
>
> > 7. Entrenched Mooks.
> >
> High Threat Rating.
>
> > 8.Mooks with hostages.
> >
> High Threat Rating, plus higher "Yang" rating.  Make the heroes
have
> to get one extra Yang success each round to avoid getting a hostage
> killed.
>
> > 9. Regenerating mooks.
> >
> Higher Threat Rating.  Or possibly same as 6, where the heroes have
> to figure out the weakness before they really start kicking ass.
>
Then there's the troll factor - the threat rating is reduced to zero,
but if the PCs don't burn the bodies, they get up again after a
certain space has elapsed with a new threrat rating...

> > 10. Guerilla mooks.
> >
> High Threat Rating

The joy of guerilla mooks  for me is in describing the way they come
out of nowhere and blend back into the background - it can be quite
unnerving to PCs even if there is no effective mechanical change...
>
> > 11. Nightvision goggle mooks.
> >
> Penalty to the Heroes Traits unless they can also see in the dark.
>
> > 12. Innocent mooks.
> >
> I like this one.  Standard, maybe even LOWER threat ratings,
> depending on where the brainwashed innocents come from.  But the
> Heroes now need an extra Yang success each round to avoid
> accidentally killing or seriously harming one of them.  Unless of
> course they just don't care.

For me, I like the players to be invested in the game world
sufficiently so they do care. Take a tip from superhero comics - the
innocents aren't just nobodies - they are people the PCs have come to
know and love, or perhaps even blood relations...
>
> > Escherwolf - Wondering how job placement for mooks actually
works...
> >
> Ever see the deleted scenes from Austin Powers?  The wife getting
the
> phone call at home?
>
> "Yes, my husband works for Dr. Evil's private army."
> "What?"  *crying*
> "Timmy, your father was run over by a steamroller."

Even so, one still has to think of what it's like down at the job
centre: "Well, we have two possible jobs for you, the first is as a
bricklayer, all work legal and respectable, and solid pay and
retirement plan. The second is as a henchman to a psychopathic
deformed criminal who wants to destroy the world. It has no
retirement plan for obvious reasons, is illegal, immoral and
unethical work,will require you to be canon fodder against a variety
of heroic types who will be much more skilled than you, and your
likelihood of either going to jail, being killed by the good guys or
being killed by the boss in a fit of pique are extremely high. Which
one would you like to interview for?"

As always I'll add your comments and ideas with credit to the
finished mook tactic list when I eventually get around to doing it
for the wiki (Bear with me, I seem to be spending most of my free
time doing renovations at home)...

Escherwolf...who has no mooks to call his own...

--- In wushurpg@..., "John McDonald" <mac3141@i...>
wrote:
> Why should the Nemesis have all the fun.
>
These are all cool ideas, but here's my problem:

In Wushu, the Mook exists to be smacked around by the Heroes.  A Mook
is born with a target on his chest, a glass jaw, poor hand-eye
coordination.  One bullet in three has his name on it.  He's a
distraction, not even worthy to be called an obstacle unless he can
get a dozen or more of his Mook buddies to join the fight.

Introducing any of these sneaky things seems to run counter to that
philosophy.  Most of your ideas can inspire some interesting
narration, but I don't know that any mechanical changes are needed in
most of the cases.  Just up the threat rating and add some flavorful
dialogue.

> 1.The Sniper mook:
>
This guy makes a great Lesser Nemesis.  Give him a single vitality
point and whatever traits you think fit best.  The Sniper gets "Long
Distance Killing" at 4 or 5.

> 2. The bait mooks:
>
The GM can just set low mook rating and after all the rating points
are gone say, "One mook is still standing, and he bolts."  If the
heroes run after him, he leads them to a bunch more mooks.

> 3. The Mooks behind a physical trap.
>
Give the trap a separate obstacle rating.  Depending on the nature of
the trap, the heroes might have to overcome it before they can get to
the mooks, or might have to pick *which one* they roll against each
round.

This works for a Nemesis, too.  Dr. Evil has his trap door to the
flaming pit.

> 4. Mooks who give their power to remaining mooks.
>
The GM Just assigns a high threat rating and narrates after each
round, "There are still some Mooks, and these look even tougher!"

> 5.Shapechanging mooks.
>
High threat rating.

> 6. Mooks that can be hurt only by conditional attacks
>
I'd allow this.  The Heroes then waste all their Yin successes when
they fight these Mooks, until they can figure out the weakness!

> 7. Entrenched Mooks.
>
High Threat Rating.

> 8.Mooks with hostages.
>
High Threat Rating, plus higher "Yang" rating.  Make the heroes have
to get one extra Yang success each round to avoid getting a hostage
killed.

> 9. Regenerating mooks.
>
Higher Threat Rating.  Or possibly same as 6, where the heroes have
to figure out the weakness before they really start kicking ass.

> 10. Guerilla mooks.
>
High Threat Rating

> 11. Nightvision goggle mooks.
>
Penalty to the Heroes Traits unless they can also see in the dark.

> 12. Innocent mooks.
>
I like this one.  Standard, maybe even LOWER threat ratings,
depending on where the brainwashed innocents come from.  But the
Heroes now need an extra Yang success each round to avoid
accidentally killing or seriously harming one of them.  Unless of
course they just don't care.

> Escherwolf - Wondering how job placement for mooks actually works...
>
Ever see the deleted scenes from Austin Powers?  The wife getting the
phone call at home?

"Yes, my husband works for Dr. Evil's private army."
"What?"  *crying*
"Timmy, your father was run over by a steamroller."

LT

--- In wushurpg@..., "Bruno" <bbelloc@h...> wrote:

> --- In wushurpg@..., "John McDonald" <mac3141@i...>
> wrote:
> >
> > 1.The Sniper mook: Whaddya know - the team of mooks kept one mook
>
> Right, but how exactly would the sniper work, since mooks don't get
> turns to themselves like a nemesis? Or would he just stay doing
> nothing until the players finish of the other mooks? I mean, there
> must be some kinda hint the players could have to find out there's
a
> sniper out there.

Hi Bruno - sory about taking so long to reply - been up to my
eyeballs in stuff here. The way I work this is that with each turn I
add a bit of description describing the environment, or the mooks as
I see them at the end of last round. I'll speak about bystanders
running for cover and the such. From the very first round, I may
describe a whistling sound near a PC's ear, or the shattering of
glass nearby that isn't expected. Those that have lost a point of chi
may be told that they have a light bullet wound - which may ring
warning bells if none of the visible mooks are carrying guns.
The sniper mook is treated like as untouchable until he is either
closed with or attacked by some ranged attack method. If all the
other mooks are dead, he is treated as a nemesis if he is out of
range, and as a mook is he can be attacked.
>
> BTW, a small idea i just had... What if ALL the mook group was
> composed of snipers? You know, like a whole SWAT team hidden all
> around the scenario, shooting the players from everywhere. So, they
> would have to just dodge around until they find a way to reach the
> snipers locations.

Heh, that's nasty...I'd make the players roll on some kind of
perception trait to locate a sniper. Traits such as soldier could
also be used to locate a sniper.
>
>
> > 3. The Mooks behind a physical trap. Not all mooks are eager to
go
> to
> > hand to hand. They may well position themselves behind a hidden
> trap
> > (such as a covered pit) and taunt the heroes into a fight. This
is
> a
> > good one if the mooks are trying to trap the heroes for delivery
> to a
> > nemesis.
>
> And how would this work? Once again, since what the mooks do gets
to
> be decided by the players while fighting them, this could get
tricky
> to use in a game.

Yeah, this one comes under sneaky GM manipulations - I don't roll to
see if they fall into a trap or ambush - I just say to the player's
before combat starts something to the effect of "Wang Hu's
mercenaries are standing at the other end of the ally, taunting you
and making obscene gestures. Do you close the gap with them?"

If the player's are hotheads (and only one of my players is) then
There should be some kind of trigger the GM could they will say yes.
Trap is triggered as PC runs headlong into it...If the PC says no,
I'll let them describe what they're doing instead. Any trait used
that might analyse tactics, perceive hidden anything, or be just
plain luck will warn them of the trap - I may not even bother to
roll. One of my PCs (playing a Dragon air spirit) immediately said no
to one of these situations saying that the enemy was all to eager to
do battle - he said he would wait for them to make the first move.
After realising that the enemy was not closing with them, despite
their eagerness to lure the PCs closer, he decided to use his mojo to
see if any traps were before him, describing his actions and words. I
didn't roll, just told him that the his mojo had revealed to him the
trap that had been set - where it was, what it did, and how to
circumvent it. So that's my technique - I ask the players if they are
moving in the desired direction , and see if they stopo and think
first...

> use to decide when to uncover the trap the mooks are using - like,
> as soon as the battle start, when half the threat rating are
> reduced, when it's reduced to
>
>
> >
> > 4. Mooks who give their power to remaining mooks. I filched this
> one
> > from a Xena episode. Let's say you have six mooks - and a threat
> > rating of six. One mook goes down - there is somekind of special
> > effect suggesting a power transference to the other mooks. Now
the
> > remaining mooks all have 2 points of chi each, and the threat
> rating
> > has increased to ten as the remaining mooks become stronger. This
> > will continue until the last standing mook will have a threat
> rating
> > far greater than the original group...gotta take these guys down
> fast.
>
> Have you tested this one on play? 'cos i think it might get a
littke
> tricky too. I mean, the idea of mooks, or at least the idea i get
> from the open rules, is that the mooks aren't any set number of
> mooks out there, just as many as the players want there to be,
> right? So, fixing a number of mooks could complicate a little the
> battle, 'cos the players would have limits to their descriptions -
> it would seem more like a nemesis battle, just that there are 6
> nemesai (or whatever the plural of nemesis is) instead of just one.

Absolutely right - this is a special circumstance wher I need the
players to realise that each successive mook they put down is getting
tougher than the last one. They are sub-nemesii mooks I guess.
>
> A better way to working this on a mook fight would maybe using the
> yang hit they get for free every turn - you know, like each threat
> rating point the players take out, the remaining mooks get an extra
> yang hit the next turns, or something like that.
>
This could work - let me play with it and see. It may work better
than my technique.
>
>
> > 11. Nightvision goggle mooks. Suddenly the lights go out and the
> > heroes find themselves in pitch blackness. The mooks have the
> upper
> > hand, though they will be stunned for a round if they are hit
with
> a
> > flash of bright light. Otherwise, just assume the mooks are
harder
> to
> > hit with yang dice until the advantage is removed.
>
> Or, the mooks get some yin hits for free too, right? Saying this
way
> could make it easier to the eventual readers to understand...
>
Yep, that's pretty much it.
>
> Well, so far, that's it. I'll see if i come up with some later.
>
Please do - it is my intention to eventually assemble these tactics
into a list for the wiki the same way as I did for the nemesis
tactics list...

Escherwolf

Neat ideas. I love playing with mooks, 'cos, more than a nemesi,
they let the players unleash all their hidden cruelty, as there's
not limit to the exact number of character they stand for - it's all
up to the players, so they can just keep killing until they're
satisfied, Kill Bill style. I'll see if a can think of some ideas to
help ya later, but i have a few comments right now about these
ones...

--- In wushurpg@..., "John McDonald" <mac3141@i...>
wrote:
>
> 1.The Sniper mook: Whaddya know - the team of mooks kept one mook
in
> a sniper position to cover their butts. Reserve a point of the
threat
> rating for the sniper - he'll be shooting from a concealed
location
> that is not directly accessible to the heroes. First the hero's
have
> to become aware that a sniper is targeting them while they melee
with
> teh other mooks, then they have to locate the sniper, and then
either
> take cover or break off and try to get to the sniper (which will
> probably involve a ranged attack, or running up stairs).Good for
> nuisance value.

Right, but how exactly would the sniper work, since mooks don't get
turns to themselves like a nemesis? Or would he just stay doing
nothing until the players finish of the other mooks? I mean, there
must be some kinda hint the players could have to find out there's a
sniper out there.

BTW, a small idea i just had... What if ALL the mook group was
composed of snipers? You know, like a whole SWAT team hidden all
around the scenario, shooting the players from everywhere. So, they
would have to just dodge around until they find a way to reach the
snipers locations.


> 3. The Mooks behind a physical trap. Not all mooks are eager to go
to
> hand to hand. They may well position themselves behind a hidden
trap
> (such as a covered pit) and taunt the heroes into a fight. This is
a
> good one if the mooks are trying to trap the heroes for delivery
to a
> nemesis.

And how would this work? Once again, since what the mooks do gets to
be decided by the players while fighting them, this could get tricky
to use in a game. There should be some kind of trigger the GM could
use to decide when to uncover the trap the mooks are using - like,
as soon as the battle start, when half the threat rating are
reduced, when it's reduced to 0, when the players lose a point (or
all points) of Chi, etc.


>
> 4. Mooks who give their power to remaining mooks. I filched this
one
> from a Xena episode. Let's say you have six mooks - and a threat
> rating of six. One mook goes down - there is somekind of special
> effect suggesting a power transference to the other mooks. Now the
> remaining mooks all have 2 points of chi each, and the threat
rating
> has increased to ten as the remaining mooks become stronger. This
> will continue until the last standing mook will have a threat
rating
> far greater than the original group...gotta take these guys down
fast.

Have you tested this one on play? 'cos i think it might get a littke
tricky too. I mean, the idea of mooks, or at least the idea i get
from the open rules, is that the mooks aren't any set number of
mooks out there, just as many as the players want there to be,
right? So, fixing a number of mooks could complicate a little the
battle, 'cos the players would have limits to their descriptions -
it would seem more like a nemesis battle, just that there are 6
nemesai (or whatever the plural of nemesis is) instead of just one.

A better way to working this on a mook fight would maybe using the
yang hit they get for free every turn - you know, like each threat
rating point the players take out, the remaining mooks get an extra
yang hit the next turns, or something like that.



> 11. Nightvision goggle mooks. Suddenly the lights go out and the
> heroes find themselves in pitch blackness. The mooks have the
upper
> hand, though they will be stunned for a round if they are hit with
a
> flash of bright light. Otherwise, just assume the mooks are harder
to
> hit with yang dice until the advantage is removed.

Or, the mooks get some yin hits for free too, right? Saying this way
could make it easier to the eventual readers to understand...


Well, so far, that's it. I'll see if i come up with some later.

C ya.

Why should the Nemesis have all the fun. Just because you're a lowly
mook, it doesn't mean that you're just gonna stand there waiting to
be whacked by the hero. No, some mooks aspire to be morethan just
canon fodder as can be seen by teh following tactics:

1.The Sniper mook: Whaddya know - the team of mooks kept one mook in
a sniper position to cover their butts. Reserve a point of the threat
rating for the sniper - he'll be shooting from a concealed location
that is not directly accessible to the heroes. First the hero's have
to become aware that a sniper is targeting them while they melee with
teh other mooks, then they have to locate the sniper, and then either
take cover or break off and try to get to the sniper (which will
probably involve a ranged attack, or running up stairs).Good for
nuisance value.

2. The bait mooks: A small group of mooks that will engage the heros,
then immediately run to another location. If the heroes pursue, they
will suddenly find themselves surrounded by a much larger (higher
threat rating) bunch of mooks - oops.

3. The Mooks behind a physical trap. Not all mooks are eager to go to
hand to hand. They may well position themselves behind a hidden trap
(such as a covered pit) and taunt the heroes into a fight. This is a
good one if the mooks are trying to trap the heroes for delivery to a
nemesis.

4. Mooks who give their power to remaining mooks. I filched this one
from a Xena episode. Let's say you have six mooks - and a threat
rating of six. One mook goes down - there is somekind of special
effect suggesting a power transference to the other mooks. Now the
remaining mooks all have 2 points of chi each, and the threat rating
has increased to ten as the remaining mooks become stronger. This
will continue until the last standing mook will have a threat rating
far greater than the original group...gotta take these guys down fast.

5.Shapechanging mooks. The heroes have come upon a group of typically
easy to beat mooks. Just as they engage the mooks shapeshift into
something worse - werewolves, demons, whatever. Now their threat
rating has doubled, and they may also be subject to the next tactic.

6. Mooks that can be hurt only by conditional attacks - silver, cold
iron, wooden stakes, holy symbols, the Kungfu quivering palm of
death. You get the idea.

7. Entrenched Mooks. The average mook may not be bright enough to
attack from a fortifiexd position (as in an ambush), but some are.
Some mooks can be entrenched behind cover. Approaching them may
involve crossing a distance under a hail of gunfire. Here I give the
entrenched position a threat rating that must be destroyed before the
mooks can be taken out.

8.Mooks with hostages. Ohno, the mooks are making a break for it
using human shields! Assign each mook with a hostage a couple of
point of threat rating. Taking out both points means the mook is down
and the hostage freed. Taking out only one point means that the mook
is hurt but still standing, but the hostage has broken away. Not
taking out any of the  mook's threat rating on an attack means that
the mook is unhurt, but the hostage has been hurt, either by being
used as a shield, or by the mook directly. If a hostage is hurt
twice, they are dead.

9. Regenerating mooks. The mooks regenerate if not burnt,
dismembered, or ritually disposed of. Good for mooks that are
zombies, trolls, or under a more than lifetime contract to Wolfram
and Hart.

10. Guerilla mooks. Who says that all the mooks come out at once.
They might be ninjas, or jungle guerrillas that emerge from the
scenery at random than melt back into it, taking short strikes each
time. Each time they attack, the PCs can also attack and defend
before the ninja melts back into the background.

11. Nightvision goggle mooks. Suddenly the lights go out and the
heroes find themselves in pitch blackness. The mooks have the upper
hand, though they will be stunned for a round if they are hit with a
flash of bright light. Otherwise, just assume the mooks are harder to
hit with yang dice until the advantage is removed.

12. Innocent mooks. These are innocent people who, because of mind
control, brainwashing, magic, or just a mistaken belief that the PCs
are an evil threat, will fight the PCs. No modifiers here - its all
in how the PCs approach teh problem. If the kill the innocents, there
should be consequences.

That's it for now - more to come. Let me know what you think, and if
you have any suggestions.

Escherwolf - Wondering how job placement for mooks actually works...

--- In wushurpg@..., Aaron Smith <blackcat1313@g...>
wrote:
> Oh, if you're willing to do the transcription, then great! Please do.
> I've got no problems with my idea seeing wider circulation.
>
> AS
  'Tis done Aaron - look for it under the fan rules section of
  the Wiki. Not so much a transcription as an edit and paste. Sorry it
took me so long to get to it, but the lady of the house suddenly
decided the house needed painting before any Christmas guests arrive...

Escherwolf - Wondering why the loo needs to be aquamarine instead of
basic beige (Sigh).

John McDonald wrote:

>--- In wushurpg@..., "Aaron Smith" <blackcat1313@g...>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Taken from my own homebrew system (coming soon to a tabletop nowhere
>>near you!) here's a way to mix up merits and flaws into the Wushu mix.
>>
>>Note: This system replaces the "when your flaw is in play, you roll
>>against a 1 for all challenges"
>>
>>
>>
>Aaron - would you like this put onto the Wiki in the fan rules section?
>I'm happy to transcribe it for you if you like...I think it deserves to
>be there...
>
>Escherwolf - Thinking that when life gives you demons, you should make
>demonade...Ok I'm not sure that made sense even to me...
>
>
Oh, if you're willing to do the transcription, then great! Please do.
I've got no problems with my idea seeing wider circulation.

AS

--- In wushurpg@..., "Aaron Smith" <blackcat1313@g...> wrote:
 

Taken from my own homebrew system (coming soon to a tabletop nowhere
near you!) here's a way to mix up merits and flaws into the Wushu mix.

Note: This system replaces the "when your flaw is in play, you roll
against a 1 for all challenges"

  

Aaron - would you like this put onto the Wiki in the fan rules section? I'm happy to transcribe it for you if you like...I think it deserves to be there...

Escherwolf - Thinking that when life gives you demons, you should make demonade...Ok I'm not sure that made sense even to me...