HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter) writes:

> Regardless of which style of humor is funnier (in my gaming group, it's the
> out-of-context humor by a long shot), I think that if a player has
> something really funny to say, he should say it, regardless of whether it's
> out of character or not.  He shouldn't have to worry about getting docked
> experience points for poor role-playing.

That's for your game, but not for all games.  That's why I said it's
"different styles".  Campaigns in which player humour is more important than
the game can be fun--I've been in such games before--but campaigns where
"disrupting the spirit of the game" is discouraged can be fun too; it's just
a different style of gaming, and withdrawing developments points for
disruptions is only one of many tools that a GM has at his disposal to make a
game successful for all participating.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:10:12 GMT
Organization: The PowerDrome BBS [(716)825-3614 Excelsior]
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! v0.960

Regarding your comments on players being docked for disruptive behaviour...I 
have found that usually just threatening to penalize a player has been 
sufficient for the most part although there have been the two memorable 
ocasions where the charcters themselves were so damn disruptive to the 
campaign that special efforts had to be made to remove them entirely...  As 
for a plyer suddenly making an 'out of period' comment such as "Beam me up 
Scotty", I think that is going a little too far.  If I wanted myself or my 
players to be rigidly forced into a mileu all the time, I would hang around 
with the S.C.A. authenticity mavens more often...  Being a bit more serious 
for a momen, it does not bother me when one of my players will suddenly say 
"Calgon take me away" when we are playing something other than Star Wars 
because the incident that triggered that comment in the original game was 
pretty damn funny and we all get a laugh.  Similarly the suddeny inclusion of 
comments like "Golden Arches" or "Beam me up Scotty" or "I'd walk a mile..." 
tend to be more humerous in my games so I think that having the referee 
continually monitoring for things like that is getting a bit too extreme.  
Nail 'em if they are out of hand, warn em if they are not paying attention or 
won't let someone else speak, but that is about it.
 
Skeksis
From: tom@clipper.ingr.com (Tom Granvold)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:34:41 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <80612@ut-emx.uucp>, dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:

> All the things I've seen happening in the last year or so, like
> Vampire and Werewolf and Shadowrun are very, very discouraging.
> I think that bad game designs with good background material are
> one of the banes of the roleplaying marketplace.  They lower
> player expectations and condition them to accept inferior game
> designs when they ought to be out looking for rules which do
> justice to the background they come with.

    Are there any game designs that you feel are better?  Also what
is it about the design of Vampire/Werewolf and Shadowrun that you
see as bad designs?

Tom Granvold
------------------------------------------------------
Mail:    2400 Geng Rd., Palo Alto, Calif., 94303
Email:   tom@clipper.ingr.com
------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:52:57 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <80612@ut-emx.uucp> dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>All the things I've seen happening in the last year or so, like
>Vampire and Werewolf and Shadowrun are very, very discouraging.
>I think that bad game designs with good background material are
>one of the banes of the roleplaying marketplace.  They lower
>player expectations and condition them to accept inferior game
>designs when they ought to be out looking for rules which do
>justice to the background they come with.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, Dave.  White Wolf's
Storyteller system has a kinda grotty combat system, to put it
mildly.  However, the rest of the mechanics are top-notch.  Yeah,
the use of dice is not what you're used to -- but that doesn't
make it bad.

There's actually something rather nice about dice rolls that I
can't figure probabilities for on the spur of the moment, as a
player.  It simulates reality a lot better -- I don't know what
the chances are of this post convincing anyone, so why should 
my character?  Makes life a tad harder on the GM, but after 
playing it for a month or so I knew how to set good target
numbers while improvising adventures.  No biggie.

And the basic game mechanic is brilliant.  The concept of most
rolls being based on stat plus ability makes it incredibly easy
to decide what the roll should be for anything not covered in 
the rules.  Further, it insures variety.  Gameplay isn't an 
endless series of DEX and STR rolls.  I haven't played many
games in which skills and attributes are of equal importance,
but the Storyteller line manages that feat.

Further, I think the game world is more important than you 
claim -- and less divorced from mechanics.  Vampire was the
first game I played in which the mechanics actively support the
game world.  After I read through the rules the first time, I
realized that given the parameters of the mechanics, vampire
society naturally would take the shape it did, even though I
assume Rein-Hagen wrote the society first.  Most game worlds
aren't well integrated with game mechanics.  Sure, they make
sense, but there's no sense of inevitability.

Are there flaws in Storyteller?  You bet.  The aforementioned
combat is a biggie.  A lot of the exceptions to the basic
roll have problems.  But they've done innovative, state of the
art things, and deserve to be acknowledged for it.

Bryant

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: Character Development
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:33:38 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

>cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner) writes:

>> Similarly the suddeny inclusion of comments like "Golden Arches" or "Beam
>> me up Scotty" or "I'd walk a mile..." tend to be more humerous in my games
>> so I think that having the referee continually monitoring for things like
>> that is getting a bit too extreme.

>Different styles I suppose.  Some gamers like to be players handling
>characters; other gamers like to forget that they are players for a while,
>and experience the game world through their characters.

>There's enough humour within the campaign setting, without having to go
>outside of it.  I find that the _characters'_ humour tends to be of much
>higher quality than the out-of-context humour from the players.

Regardless of which style of humor is funnier (in my gaming group, it's
the out-of-context humor by a long shot), I think that if a player has
something really funny to say, he should say it, regardless of whether it's
out of character or not.  He shouldn't have to worry about getting docked
experience points for poor role-playing.


                               --Steve Stelter
                                 sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:01:10 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Not very realistic?  Name one system that incorporates magic, psionics, and
> religious miracles that is!

Harnmaster?  No system with any of those things can truly be realistic, but
Harnmaster offers them with a strong realistic "feel".

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:57:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep29.145703.9069
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Distribution: rec
Organization: Columbia University

morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	It is not a major rules problem in GURPS - but it is something that 
>>definitely should be fixed. 
>
>They "fixed" GURPS to be less deadly on purpose.  It was a design intent.  
>So don't hold your breath for an "official" fix.  The idea is that it isn't 
terribly fun to spend two hours making a character just to die with one hit -
>even if that one hit is from a bazooka.  

	I don't have much of a problem with the dying rules for a 10 HT 
character - who will on average die by the time they are at -20 HT or so, 
and will probably be unconcious long before then. 

	The problem is that it scales badly with higher HT, so that there 
is a fairly sharp break around 14HT: above that and characters usually have 
to be beaten down to -5xHT to kill them. I do not think this was the intent 
of the rules fix, and I do not consider this neccessary to promote general 
lesser lethality. 

	I would much prefer a rules fix which made combat a little less 
lethal for all characters rather than *alot* less lethal for characters 
of high HT. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jgrace@netcom.com (Joseph Grace)
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:56:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <80616@ut-emx.uucp> dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>That was a joke, right?  TORG is a horrible game system.  The setting is 
>fairly neat, but again, if we're looking for State of the Art mechanics,
>TORG isn't very realistic, is rather restrictive and dictatorial, and 
>isn't actually all that playable.
>
>Dave

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion...

However, I strongly disagree.  Yes, the setting is neat, but the mechanics
(including the innovative drama cards) are phenomenal.  I have already
posted that TORG is scalable, well-integrated, promotes role-playing,
blah-blah-blah ( ;-), so I won't bore you to death with a repeat summary.

Perhaps you don't understand the system or are confusing Rules Presentation
with Rules mechanics?  I would agree the rule books are not very well laid
out, but the rules themselves are state of the art in elegance, power and
playability (probably highest power per table ratio in multi-genre (and even
just serious single genre) games systems).  [An index to the books would only
begin to address the problem with presentation, though... :-(]  Nevertheless,
the system itself is are very well-designed, general, powerful and playable
(sheesh, it's all addition --- what more could you ask? :-)!

Anyway, the game is well worth the effort of wading through the
admittedly lousy presentation, in my opinion.  Give it a try!

BTW, I posted the message.  If you have specific questions/gripes,
feel free to e-mail (or whatever)!

= Joe =
From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:12:59 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <F4w5RB4w165w@swob.nullnet.fi> maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>CX6L000 <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>
>> >If a projectile strikes bone, it will generally shatter everything around
>> >it, sending sharp pieces of your own skeletal structure throughout your
>> >chest cavity.

From CX6L (aka Kromm): I didn't write that! J.D Frazer did!
I disagreed with him, and agreed with you ;-)

>Gun people have done a lot of work on this and results are clear (on
>this thing at least) - bullet type matters a lot. The bullet MUST expand
>RELIABLY to ensure high incapacitation chances (and lessen
>overpenetration risks). Striking bone does not expand most bullets.

This was my point to him, as well! I know this, I was just trying
to convey this to him! Sorry if it wasn't clear who was writing
to who...we had a bit of a war going at the time.

>maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
>Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters

______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Superhero rp
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:21:31 GMT

In article <fastjack.717825668@cwis> fastjack@cwis.unomaha.edu (John M. Scheibeler) writes:
>dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>
>
>>To clarify a little: I suppose my main problem with Champions in a
>>Wildcards type setting is the exponential progression built into
>>the rules.  In Wildcards, the strongest bricks are strong enough to
>>kill a normal with one punch.  But they could not lift as much as
>>a typical Champions brick could lift.
>
>	Oh yeah?  It was noted in some book that The Great and Powerful
>Turtle lifted a battleship with his TK, and Golden Boy lifts Tanks like
>they were made of papier-mache.  In CHAMPIONS, the Turtle would be rated at
>100 STR, and Golden Boy at 55 STR.  Even the Harlem Hammer lifts about that
>much weight.  And according to the HSRB, a 55 STR is "average" for most
>bricks in most campaigns.
>

I grant you the point: the strongest Wildcards bricks can lift as much
as the average Champs bricks.  But the average wildcards brick is
much weaker than the average champs brick.

And my impression from the books is 
that Golden Boy has considerably more than an 11 D6 punch, and that
is based entirely on his strength, not his skill.

As to Turtle, he is a telekinetic, which is much different than a
brick in the Wildcards world.  In fact, the part where they noted
that he could lift battleships specifically contrasted him with the
bricks, who would never be able to do the same.

Finally, I wouldn't say "Even the Harlem Hammer."  It's fairly 
clear in the books that the Harlem Hammer is more or less tied
with Golden Boy as the strongest brick in the Wildcards world.

Joe
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:40:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	I would like to point out that a 15 HT is not just "better
than average."  A 15 HT is most likely VERY better than average if
not (at the very least) EXTREMELY better.  People like this are
probably VERY rare and are definitely going to stand out in their
field.  (In this case, this person is one of the hardiest, healthies
people alive...)

	It seems to me that it's fairly obvious that a guy with a 15
HT is going to last MUCH longer than someone with a 10 HT.  Compare
a character with a 15 skill in broadsword to one with a 10 skill.
(Etc, etc)
	I don't find this "unrealistic" or anything.  I seriously
doubt the guy with a 15 HT will survive a bazooka shot.  Maybe when
I get home today I'll pull out my rulebook and check...

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.design
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: Re: Supplements for Multiple Systems
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
	<1992Sep23.110104.1281@msus1.msus.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:35:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.110104.1281@msus1.msus.edu> f00022@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (M. Shanmugasundaram (F00022@TIGGER.stcloud.msus.edu)) writes:

>   Gaming companies publish different systems because there is always a demand 
>   for them: people want something different, something with sympathetic 
>   vibes towards them. I'm a living example. I don't keep games I'm not 
>   interested in, unlike a lot of people I know. The ones I dislike, I sell 
>   (at a loss, of course) and buy and experiment with other systems. I have 
>   owned nearly every popular game on the market, and experimented with 
>   so-called "generic supplements". 

Sure, I agree--I simply want to see an easier way for people to be
able to publish source material if they don't happen to want to
publish a game system too, they don't want to license it, and they
don't want to take the chance on getting sued.

> As a warning note: some of these generic supplements are NOT. For
> instance, the _Dragons_, _Giants_, _Witches_, and _Undead_ Role-Aids
> (I've forgotten the publishing company) are geared mainly toward
> DnD.

You're correct; they're by Mayfair and they are for XD&D.

>   The Flying Buffalo? _City Sourcebooks I-V -are a little better: they reach 
>   ...
>   The products which match my concept of a generic role-playing supplement 
>   are _Grimtooth's Traps_, of which I have never owned a copy, but love 

Yup, good stuff.

>   IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a gaming system everyone will like. 
>   Remember the words of  ol' Honest Abe. 

I agree, and I wasn't proposing a game system, but a game development
platform that people could use to publish stuff in, and that gamers
could convert to the game system of their choice.

>   THE MARKET IS SMALL for products which do nothing more than provide a 
>   stepping stone. An intermediate standard is worse than useless. If you 

Perhaps so.

>   I don't know (but would like to know) how sales have been for TPO, but 

We've sold about 2500 copies over six months.

>   Civil flames are certainly welcome. I will either defend myself or 
>   agree with you. :)

No flames here!

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
				  mavra@wizards.com

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dmcgown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel J McGown)
Subject: Re: Sexist (?) Language in Rules (was Re: Q: Looking for "women's" rpg
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:50:47 GMT

I think perhaps we should all be a little less sensitive about this kind of 
thing.  You make it sound like the usage of "he" as a generic pronoun (which is
perfectly correct, no matter what you think the origin is) is an evil on a par 
with murder.  I don't hear any of you complaining that we use the word 
"sinister" to mean evil or wrong as the Romans did, even though that stemmed 
from their belief that left-handed people were intrinsically wrong somehow 
themselves.  It's the language you speak.  Get a new one or live with it.

-Emperor Hydra the First
  "A Dependable Ruler For Over Fifteen Minutes"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: wcarone@jarthur.claremont.edu (Bill Carone)
Subject: Question about Wizards of the Coast and The Primal Order
Summary: I am unable to locate the book anywhere I can reach.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:17:21 GMT

  I have read much about The Primal Order on various newsgroups
and mailing lists, and have so far been impressed. However, I am
unable to find a copy. Could someone get me an address where I
could order it? Thanks in advance for your help.

Bill.
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Villains and Vigilantes
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>tomscud@ruf.rice.edu (Thomas Reid Scudder) writes:
>>Hmm... gotta disagree a bit here.  The difference isn't THAT huge, when you
>>consider how much time it takes to work out the hit mod and carrying capacity
>>for a player, and much of the increased time in Champs is due to the extra
>>options a player is presented with.
>
>	I dunno. If you want to build a character concept, in Champions or
>any point based system, you usually have to either squash or chop the 
>concept because the points are never quite right.  In a non-point restricted
>environment, you just build the concept. No point fiddling and the hit mod
>and CC rules are VERY simple calculations -- a matter of two minutes total.

	This seems to be an argument that if you are using a point system, 
you have to follow the rules, but if you are using a roll-based system, you 
are free to ignore them. 
	I agree that of the campaigns that I have seen using point-based 
systems, they stuck by the character generation rules more rigidly than in 
the roll-based systems I have seen. However, I think this is a comment on 
the players rather than the system. 

	A system might attract or even encourage players who are overly 
concerned with 'game balance'. But for those who are not worried about game 
balance, whether a system uses points or rolls shouldn't make a difference - 
since they will just build characters based on concept anyhow. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp
From: gion@chopin.udel.edu (Timothy C. Gion)
Subject: Re: shadowrun and Death.
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:31:41 GMT

In article <BvEB4v.CI0@acsu.buffalo.edu> v121mhb5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.O.G. of S.A.R.P.A.) writes:
>
>	Personally, I think things are starting to get violent out there.
>

It's always been violent.  Now it's just deadlier.  heh...

-- 
Timothy Gion AKA  /     \     University of Delaware - Computer Science
                 -Merdion-                     ^                   
                  \     /                      \ fixed that sp error!
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Super rp's
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:25:46 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

loydb@fnordbox.UUCP (Loyd Blankenship) writes:
>My house rule (SJ wouldn't let me make it official) is that no one can
>have a Dodge better than 14.
>
>I'm also tinkering with a -1 cumulative penalty for Dodges in the same turn.

	This is the rule which we used in a GURPS Cyberpunk game I was in. 
My character was the problem, because he had a Dodge of 18 with PD. Using 
that rule at least assured that he was not immune to automatic fire. I 
believe their was a cumulative -2 penalty for each dodge after the first. 
This meant that volume of fire was important as well as accuracy. 
	It worked decently - but the rules on cyberlegs still should be 
changed. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | Alice: "But if I wasn't real, I shouldn't be
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | able to cry."  Tweedledum: "I hope you don't
Columbia University         | imagine those are *real* tears."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy