Virdea

First I am not discounting a 25% drop in prison populations, I am an active political advocate for this change, and was significantly responsible (along with thousands of others) of bringing the change to the state of Washington despite not being a user of the drug in question. Please realize that as a nearly 50-year old politically active author and a 32-year member of the Republican Party in its Teddy Roosevelt wing, my own support for the legalization of marijuana (along with my support for other libertarian ideals such as removal of government from regulation of sex, marriage, religion, speech, and the like) is an important part of the process. When the center-right moves on ideas like marijuana, change happens. That change has to percolate, but people like myself are working hard to make the change. Diversity is a measure of differences in social custom. The subject is complex but the basis of understanding social diversity comes from the writings of Boaz and Kroeber, who each attempted to define social norms versus social extremes. Communities can differentiate in a wide number of ways - what they have for dinner and when, how they feel about work, what language they speak, the color of their skin and their choice in free time activity. While some social diversity measures are flawed, social diversity itself can easily be tracked to crime. Africa is the most diverse continent and has very high crime - although crime is lower in less diverse nations. As for African Americans committing crime. Diversity means having significant minority groups and African Americans are not the only minority group with high crime - the Romany of Europe are another example. However it is wrong to consider African Americans in the US as one cultural group. They represent at least 11 major groups, just as self-identified white populations in the US are actually near 9 groups, hispanics are 8 groups, and so forth.

Again, you are missing the point, there are other factors. 1) Only about 25% of the prison population can be reduced by easing up on drug enforcement. This is significant and should be done, but except for people in the press, no one with any knowledge of the situation believes there will be any more benefit. Note I demonstrated this number from three directions. 2) The US has a higher crime rate than most European democracy because our social diversity is WAY higher. Social diversity is associated with higher crime rate - this is a truth that cannot be shaken, and the US cannot reduce social diversity the way Europe has done in the past. It has to await slow integration of populations. Note that crime in European nations is rising and in some areas already surpasses the US in some nations. This rise is often associated with diverse populations. Please note I am not advocating racist crap - rises in crime in the US were associated with Irish, Italian, Swedish, and other immigrations and always fall when those populations integrate even if they retain clear identities. This is because the integration is a two way road. 3) The current system we have is locked into place by the Bill of Rights. It is based on freedoms that cannot be removed in any easy way.

The main issue faced by game designers is the suspension of disbelief versus playability. It is easier to play a "realistic" game for a player because art imitates life. However then you run into the issue that reality for most people is informed by improbable Hollywood epics. Then you run into the conundrum of the mean versus the outlier - Sergeant York for example performed an impossible task - no system can easily simulate that effort.

The main issue here is the continuum of detail. No matter where a design puts the peg, they will be derided. The simplest system I ever designed had each soldier with 3 numbers - an attack, defense, and damage score using d12. The attack score determines how many dice you throw to determine a success, the second score indicates what number is needed to result in damage, and the third number is the amount of damage you can sustain before you are out of battle. So a great warrior (6-11-55) faces 10 Kobolds (1-1-4) is assured to kill 1 per round - he cannot miss, while each kobold has only 1/6 chance of hitting the warrior each round. Special abilities, such as the ability to target two creatures at the same time, more than one attack per round, or attacks that can nullify the attacks of the enemy ad a layer of complexity, but the system is so simply anyone can learn it in a few hours. Despite its simplicity this system always play tests out the best and gets highest ratings from players. More complexity is added in terms of modules. On the far extreme is Arms Law which purports to be one of the most accurate in the business. It is not all that accurate, but it is complicated and presents literally tens of thousands of options for players to contemplate. When I design a new game I always use my generic system first, then replace it with the new system. However it is funny that once released no matter what system I use it will generate controversy.

This is simply a special attack where a sword (which is a versatile CSP weapon) adds a B style attack.

Obviously throwing 1d6 damage for a pistol and 2d6 for a submachine gun is easier, but I did not start out using this data set for games, it was used for games only after it was used by me for writing a pair of historical papers. Achieving a spacial intersect with a bullet is a different issue by and large than the effect of the bullet when it achieves that intersect. When I stated my models I was not seeking a means of making a game system, but was determining how much danger I was personally in when presented with different tactical situations when I was myself the possible target of various weapons. There was simply no need for me to simplify at this point. When I created my game and expanded my research I did not need to simplify the system until I was ready to create my model.

Yes - it would work. The main reasons I use the system I do is that 1) it neatly connects with major classes of pre-historical weapons, and 2) it is impossible to translate the system you describe directly from pre 1800 data and anthropological data, 3) exsanguination is a two category effect model - shock and system collapse, and the system described is useful for force models regarding armor - allowing protection to be included.

The French MAS 49/56 can swap sights and have the sights close to the money - at least at closer range (precision 400m plus then you are correct, the chance of the two weapons firing 10 ring is laughable). For years the ability of all French rifles to carry as scope was seen as a disadvantage of other rifles.

In determining mortality effects of weapons from forensic evidence the difference between an automatic rifle and an infantry rifle is nonexistence. The soft tissue damage caused by each weapon is similar enough that even a forensic investigator cannot determine which weapon originated the shot. Interestingly enough current emergency room procedure also fails to differentiate between a machine gun and a single shot in admissions - both get GSW charted as if both weapons were the same, because in effect they are in terms of the damage they caused. P type injury incurs one type of response, B type another. When studying a medieval burial pit I have limited evidence to follow, but the wounds will all be of four types for death in battle - for those that can be determined at all.

It is based on the testing of ancient weapons. A spear has a primary attack means in formation - the stab, which is a piercing style attack. It has a secondary, less effective means of attack - the slash. In close formation that form of attack becomes more difficult. It has a very poor bludgeon form of attack. Autopsies of individuals killed by spear type weapons show piercing attacks to be king - and indeed when we look at mass graves from eras where long pikes are the main weapon we find a limited number of other wounds - implying that the weapon had a main style of attack. Many more creative ways of using the spear come from samurai use - as an individual as opposed to a mass weapon. "Slashing with the tip" has the spear holder place the palm over the butt of the weapon and then second hand extended, seeking to drive the front of the weapon in figure eights to menace the face. The problem is this move forces the spear holder to leave the safety of a formation and does not result in an optimum use of the weapon. To come closer to your example. A rifle produces significant numbers of piercing type wounds - it is a (p) class weapon. You can reject the use of a rifle as a (p) style weapon and attempt to make (s) type wounds but the effectiveness of the weapon is lowered. B style wounds are also possible, but perhaps training soldiers to concentrate on generating these type of wounds (by using the butt of the weapon, or perhaps waiting for the bad guy to stand under a thing that can be shot loose) is suboptimal. A roman sword had a thrusting attack and a slashing attack bu design when used with a shield in closed formation. When fighting open formation romans had a attack consisting of punching the enemy. So this weapon could be said to have two main forms of attack, and a secondary. A glaive in the middle ages has a cleaving attack with a weak bashing attack and slashing attack.

This is all taken from the book I am writing on infantry weapons, but the ancient tool kit developed four weapon styles: bludgeoning, cleaving, slashing, and piercing. Bludgeoning is the oldest human weapon style and likely predates the stone age. B A bludgeon attack is deadly when directed against the head or neck, and is capable of disarming or rendering silent an enemy through painful strikes to the extremity. Bludgeons are generally heavy and require strength to employ. The earliest B weapons are made from tools used to separate grain from chaff. C Cleaving weapons are bludgeons that have a reduced edge, for example axes and glaives. Cleaving weapons are best used as jointers - targeting the joints of an enemy they cause dislocations, those dislocation can be fatal if carried through with a will. The earliest C weapons are made from devices used to fell trees and clear plant matter. S Slashing weapons were developed by sharpening cleaving weapons. The S class of weapon solves a problem created by B and C class weapons in that its damaging attacks create a cumulative or whole body injury that today we call shock. When a B or C class attack fails to carry through, the force is usually expended against resilient muscle and body structure. A human can literally be beaten black and blue and have little long term issue as long as the attacks do not rupture a small number of protect internal organs, or cause a concussion. Slashing weapons open the human tissue and even in small cuts lead to blood pressure loss and effort of the body to control the loss of blood volume. A cut, followed by another, followed by a third is cumulative in its effect. Knives used to dress leather are the first major slashing devices, based on the ability of some stone when snapped to form a sharp edge. (P) Piercing weapons were developed hunting weapons like the spear, and are the deadliest weapons, but often the hardest to employ and manufacture. Where a slashing weapon relies on blood loss from arterial destruction, piercing weapons rely on organ destruction and are the only weapon designed to pierce deep into the human body. (D) not an offensive category but a defensive category, some weapons have defensive design elements, such as the glaive whose length is a defensive feature. The sword gained a following in Greek times because of versatility. A properly designed sword was capable of being used in all four fighting modes listed above, plus has defensive value. In addition swords, along with knives, were natural side arms. This means a weapon that can be carried around while camp duties are carried out.

Jihadi all take oaths to give their lives for Allah. The AC130 is designed to fill that oath. A terrible weapon for a power with total air superiority.

1) These idiots will never hit me. Why don't they just go ahead and shoot? 2) I can't remember how it goes, ready, fire aim? Fuck it, I will just shoot my pistol in the air. 3) Shit! I was suppose to write down his last words, but I could not hear them. Did he really say 'goathead' to the squad? 4) I wonder if they would still let me shoot this guy if they knew I was only 11? 5) Jesus, they always put me in the second rank and I am only 1.2 meters tall! 6) Goathead, how can he know that! 7) You know, this would be a cool time to use my grenade. 8) I wonder what he meant by cheek weld? Could that be why I always miss?

/realism The economy of a romanized brittanic settlement will be brass sestercii and silver denarri. Gold will no longer be know except as a fabulous wealth item. Gold coins, when they exist, come from the Angles and the Saxons, who bring the gold in from the continent - Roman gold ended about a hundred years before and only come in as pocket pieces. /realism

Until you get a better name for the game, I am going to dub it "The Legends of Arthur." Now, what dangers will these adventurers face?

Yes, but what I want is not a dry answer to questions that I needed to start, but an exciting answer to the Ws. Walk me through an adventure.

The reason we need to know this is we are looking for what tools our game needs to act as rules. We need to have a compelling reason to gather around the table.

If you choose a class system then these become your classes. If not, then you have a classless system and your character builds a character to face challenges. There are known sins in many systems. Min/maxing is one. Shop window design is another. Game players will go all out to max their characters for fighting, then discover this is boring and quit a game never knowing their own choices made them quit. What is success in the game look like? What is an adventure? The original DnD defined itself by one adventure that would later be called In Search of the Unknown. Mike Carr took the basic concept of what Gygax did around a table and distilled it with a minimum of fuss, threw in some simple expositor about Roghan the Fearless and Zelligar the Unknown, and the Caverns of Quasqueton, and you were off. That module represents around 250 hours of playtime when it was first released, sheer genius, and it defined the entire game from then on it, both on what it did and what it did not do.

In terms of games we have your setting, now we need a model. Card games are expensive because cards have to be printed. Here the server client model might work. Your characters are defined by what is known as le milieu. Who is it possible to be in this world? A christian priest, a mendicant monk, a warrior, a stripling looking to break out of life, a bard who has traveled into the christian lands?

We got better than we deserved in the first three movies. Fact is, that Hobbit was never a three movie epic.

As a writer of fantasy you do not take the world progress that really happened, but instead place words on technology that the people have in their hands that describes what you see in your head. In my own book Memories of an Older World, My main character is an officer fighting against a Barbarian horde. During the war he is gifted the yataghan owned by his lieutenant on the man's death. I was written many florid letters filled with hate about this because 1) medieval underlings did not gift weapons in Frankish or other germanic cultures in Europe, and 2) yataghans were a weapon developed from very strong early steel by the Ottomans but not present before the 1820s. It was hard to tell them that on the world of Virdea (err, so that's how the name came about) the people, who are descendants of genetically birthed space travelers from a long range seeding ship, do not happen to have a culture or a technology that is precisely European medieval. Gifting a weapon is a Dagorian cultural practice that says "you must carry my fight." The yataghan was a weapon of peacetime Dagorians, used for its dash and good looks on a civilian outfit, and it carriage by a soldier like the lieutenant was a declaration that his occupation of war was not his fondest dream. When the main character takes up the yataghan he accepts a dual responsibility of both taking up the fight, but also finding a way to leave the fight when it was over. You are right that many people took Middle Earth as some prototype of medieval period, but Tolkien never intended this - the people were medieval in technology but their thinking patterns were alien to the people of Europe as they were all walking myths. Tolkien's clever ruse was to tell a story that would later become lost except for hymns and poems.

In my writing on medieval combat that was part of the research leading up to Total Eclipse I proposed calling all swords with single hand "thumb forward" grips arming swords, a term used by scholars for a 10th century knight's sword. These swords vary in size based on how close the military units who wield them fight, but could be found of nearly any length capable of being held by one from 250 BCE to 1500 CE. Many of the attempts to differentiate sword length and function a la Oakshot were categorization where the writers of the time saw little difference between the weapons (and did not even use the Roman term spatha. In most of Europe after the withdrawal of the legions the sword was actually a side arm of knights and not employed on foot, and burial prizes of Anglo Saxons show that the sword was an officer's weapon. This is because a fighting sword was expensive. In DnD the sword is 10gp and an meal 5 sp, making a sword worth 20 days food. In my own game a sword was a crucial weapon because of its probability, but its costs is 1000 times that of a day of food.

Paki nukes are probably in the range of god knows if they will work.

To be fair I have a BFA barrel for the Glock that simulates recoil. However it does not simulate the real "zing!" you hear when a bullet passes in front of your nose. Nothing is worse than being in the wrong position in the tire house and figuring out at the last second you are in a covered arc of someone in the line.

OK, the game has a treatment of sorts. Now you have to lay out design goals.