HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdavis@staccato.cray.com (Brent G Davis 66634)
Subject: Re: Evil PC's without "Just hack-n-slash" and other problems?
Organization: Cray Research Inc., Chippewa Falls, WI
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:01:01 CDT


In article <BtpG7p.M79@acsu.buffalo.edu> dudek@acsu.buffalo.edu (David T. Dudek)
 writes:
>
>How could I as a DM and the players allow Chaotic or Evil characters in the
>party while still adhering to alignment and keeping the game interesting?
>

First, let me say that you and I share a similar DM'ing philosophy concerning
the use of evil and chaotic characters.  As for what can be done to
include them in your campaign, here are a couple things I have used that
have worked:

1.  One-shot characters.  Use on the night when a friend wants in on the
gaming session, or one of the players just lost his character, and a raise dead
in't available.  The whole idea here is to introduce a non-permanent
character for this one (or a few) gaming session(s).  In the beginning
the party will have no clue as to the differing alignment and will cooperate
with the new evil or chaotic individual.  However, by the end, the party will
probably discover their true nature and break their company.  Works well
as long as players aren't seeking revenge on other players characters.

2.  The necessary joint effort.  Some great threat forces characters of
differing alignments to work together.  I have used this before, and the
role-playing opportunities are great.  In one campaign, all the forces of
law had to join forces to defeat a great chaos threatening to destroy
the universe (ya, I know, old hat).  Characters brought in their lawful or
neutral characters from other campaigns and worked together.  It was really
quite fun, but this campaign ended when the threat was eliminated.


>--David Thomas Dudek  aka: the "DUDE"  |  "The opinions expressed are those of
>  University at Buffalo                |   my alter id, and do not reflect
>  V098PWXS@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU        |   gamma rays in any way, shape or
>  dudek@acsu.buffalo.edu               |   form."

Brent

--
 /  bdavis@romulus.cray.com     Cray Research Inc.    Chippewa Falls, WI  \
(  Just another Engineer/Musician/AD&D'er multiclass with Internet access  )
 \ "I`m a zombie in the a.m., when it's just too early to wake the dead." /
From: menery@de3a1066a.osd.mil (Ristonofer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Elves and Munckinism.
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:08:05 GMT

I believe it's incumbent upon the DM to make campaign differences for the races
to make up for the relative differences in character power.  If you see Elves asnothing more than superior Humans with pointy ears, you've missed the point.  Ifyou follow a bit more truly to the lines of the Tolkein Elf (sorry, EGG, you
stole it right from LOtR), Elves are indeed superior, but have different cultureand motivations than Humans.  They are a great and proud people, who would neverconsider being thieves are assassins.  Their long lifespans give them a far
different view of the world than have Humans, making why and what they do 
different.  

Personally, I have changed quite a bit about Elves in my own game, and will
only allow a player that has demostrated the ability to understand how to fit
the character into my Elves' world-view to play one.  If anyone is interested
in the changes I have made to the Elves, I'll be happy to forward it along.


--
Ristonofer
menery@galt.osd.mil
Lucid observation.  Snappy retort.  World-embracing cliche.
Witty non-sequitir.
From: cb317@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephanie J. Kessler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Poisons
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:43:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The Herbalism skill can be used for poison knowledge, I believe.
At least, that is the way my DM has used it in the past...
-- 
The United States is a nation of laws:  badly written and
randomly enforced.     Frank Zappa

cb317 @ cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: whayden@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Bill Hayden;;;;)
Subject: A **Different** Armor Class System (was: Question on Armor Class)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:40:24 GMT

Before I start..... Anyone know the where abouts of Chuck Oliva ????
                    (a gamer, DM, schooled at PURDUE UNIVERSITY)


 
morpheus@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Morpheus Nosferatu) writes:

>Something I have always been curious about is why AC in (A)D&D is set up so
>that if you have absolutely no protection, your AC is 10, and the better
>the protection you have, the smaller the AC number will be.

.... message removed here
 
>Does anyone have any answers or ideas for this long-winded question?
>
>					Morpheus
>

Well,  I ran in a world several year ago at your University where the armor
class system was turned around.... (ie naked was 0, plate + shield was 8, and
so on).... so a old AC of -3 is 13 in this system....

You also have a "to hit" modifier that was either subtracted or added to your
attack roll (d20). This would tell you the armor class you would hit....

example : A 6th Level Fighter has a "to hit" modifier of -6 (see table below),
          he is attacking an unknown creature with a +3 long sword....
          The player rolls a d20 and gets a 15... so the player would say to 
          the DM  - "I hit Armor Class (15 - 6 + 3) 12"  The DM returns 
          "sorry you miss"....

To the "To hit" modifier you would add any strength bonuses, weapon bonuses, 
spell bonuses (much like you always do) and you would also subtract any 
penalties (ie. spells, range, etc)...

It works great and simple to set up "to hit" modifiers for each weapon   
carried by the characters, plus it gives the DM a way to hide the AC of the
monster.... (at least for a little while)....  And it makes fighting a H*LL 
of a lot easier.....

(to see the table,  write to me at the below address)


Willy....


((((WHAYDEN@CHAINSAW.ECN.PURDUE.EDU))))
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:06:18 CST
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <warren-270892132327@minerva.taligent.com>, warren@apple.com (Chris Warren) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.115554.701@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:
> 
>> In article <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>> 
>> > Notice that all my examples are class-based instead of race-based.  That's
>> > because the class restrictions (IMHO) are the most ridiculous of all.
>> > But hey, we live with them, in the name of game balance....
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 	That might be why I play mainly GURPS now :-)
> 
> I was wondering how long it would be until the question of point
> based systems vs class based systems would come up.

	Yeah, I was trying to stay clear of that topic (the one line of mine
above is my only reference to it). I generally only play GURPS now, but I have
a long-running (for me) AD&D campaign I dabble in on occassion. I don't want to
turn this into a point vs level debate, though.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Munchikinism/Min-Maxing (Require Def'n)
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:51:10 GMT

In article <u855271.714898448@franklin> u855271@franklin.cc.utas.edu.au (Peter Didlick) writes:


   Well I have been reading this group for about a year now and I am still
   confused as to the exact definition of the terms 'Munchkin' and to a 
   lesser extent 'Min-Max'.


Min/Maxer: Calculator man, computer optimisation, best tactics always, find
           loophole in rule and use to best advantage.

Munchkin: Hey, my thief's got ONLY 18 54% strength! Look how I blasted that
          monster! 54 hit points of damage in a single round! Gee, I like
          this sword... but I really hope I'll get another magical armor
          soon, I've been wearing that +2 plate armor since I was 4th
          level. Heck, I'm 10th level now, I should have at least 10 magic
          items! What, this gem is worth only 100 GP? Gee, I throw it
          with the rest of the "small change" in my bag of holding.
          A dragon? Charge, he;s got to have a big treasure filled with
          magical items and a loada cash! What do you mean, I've just 
          gotten up to 5th level, and my master doesn't give me fireball?
          What a scumbag! Gee, this character will NEVER survive, it's got
          a dex of only 14! etc.. etc...

PowerMonger: MORE POWER!!! MORE POWER!!! MORE POWER!!!
             (acute munchkinitist chronic crisis sickness).


I far prefer a Min/Maxer than a munchkin. Powermongers are a reak
nightmare, tough. Anybody ever had a real powermonger in his group and
managed to find that having the guy around wasn't a total nightmare?

If yes, then PLEASE tell me how you did it.

--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:51:30 GMT

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>Oh, so in your campaign, the paladin talks to his deity?  Like, on a
>daily basis?  Or is it just when he gets into tough situations?  Funny,
>'cause I play a cleric and I've never gotten any advice from my deity.
>Or any coversation.  Only spells.

Well, that depends on the way your GM wants to run your paladins and
clerics. A good example of a playable way to have paladins "communicate"
with their followers is in Elizabeth Moon's quite excellent "Deed of
Paksenarion." I'm not talking about a godphone or anything like that,
just the awareness that your god is paying attention to you. It's a 
personal taste thing with GM's.

>>This isn't going to break the paladin's heart. He is concerned with
>>his people and his god foremost. Most gods aren't that concerned with
>>what you do with outsiders.

>Sorry, but I can't consider any god 'good' who would say "be good to
>each other, and do whatever the hell you want with people not of
>our religion."  Any god who would allow killing, raping, etc of people
>just because they worship a different deity is not good in my book.

*shrug* Your book is only one in a large library. The brutal treatment
of people not of a religion is common in our history. 

>Besides, some gods actually get along with each other or work together.
>What would paladins from these gods do then?

They would most likely get along then. I'm not saying all gods would bump
heads. However, most religions with pantheons don't seem the type to
have paladins. 

Axly
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:26:17 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug27.161529.16709@news.nd.edu>, dmatiske@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes:
> 	Maybe thieving shouldn't be a class.  After all can't you have a magic 
> user who steals or a fighter who steals? They got rid of the assassin with 
> this logic so maybe they will can the Thief.

	Unfortunately, this can also be said of fighting. One possibility is
to simply have each character create his own class from the beginning, based
on what he wants to play. The classes in the books can be considered the
standard archetypes, and the subclasses are examples. Just a thought.

> 	One thing about levels that is totally unrealistic is how thier is 
> constant, steady improvement as you  gain levels. ( the figethers thac goes 
> down by 1 every level.) In reality it just wouldn't happen that way. Thier 
> should be a large gain at the start of his career and very little gain at 
> the end.

	While improvement is steady, the amount of experience needed for each
level (except very high levels) roughly doubles over the previous one. Thus, it
keeps taking longer and longer to get to higher levels. Face it, its faster to
go from level 1-5 than from 15-20. This does what you want -- big gain at the
start of her career, and very little gain later, in a (disguised) way.

> [this dealt with demi-humans running amok because of no level limits, or
somethin like that -- I couldn't tell exactly, 'cause the poster used more than
80 columns, or had an auto-return out Vax doesn't recognize, and it wuz a mess]

	As I said before, the lifespan of adventurers are, theoretically, equal
(if we ever balance the races, that is :-)). Take a elvish mage at 20th level.
Several people have pointed out that he'll be 100th level in a few decades.
Okay, assume he gets 10,000 xp a year (a semi-reasonable sum). Well, it takes
something like 250,000 xp per level for him to advance. At that rate, it'll
take 25 years per level. That's 2000 years. At 100,000 xp a year, it would take
but 200 years.  But, the chance of him getting knocked off in 200 years is very
likely (adventurers tend to have shorter life-spans than normal adventurers as
well). 

Brandon Cope


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Poisons
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:26:48 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep3.140239.25191@csd.uch.gr> kermits@pasifae.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths) writes:

>I am interested in taking a non-weapon proficiency about poisons.However the
> Player's Handbook (ADnD) has no such proficiency.So,anyone out there has
> made one or got any info ? I am interested mainly in distinguishing poisons
> and knowing how to use them (and what a given poison does).However,i would 
> like to be able to make poisons, even the easier ones.

Herbalism.

Check it out.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Tolkien (was: Re: Elven Chain Mail (Why?))
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:11:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: burrhus.1992Aug28.201120.21889
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <donm.715025375@swanlake> donm@cs.UAlberta.CA (Don Murray) writes:
>I think the way you can still read Tolkien and enjoy it, is to deliberately
>put yourself into a naive, self-indulgent frame of mind, forget about all
>the stuff you have read, and just enjoy it for what it is.  The difficulty
>is:  the Lord of the Rings is just too long, and I can't make it.

	Not a flame this, but I disagree.  I think LOTR has much more
depth then most current fantasy.  I need to put myself into a naive,
self-indulgent frame of mind to read most of it - I would say exactly the
opposite frame of mind is needed to read Tolkien.  And I really can't say
I've read anything that impressed me quite as much as Tolkien (Frans G.
Bengtsson's R|de Orm was damn good, but too different a style to compare,
really).
	Well, it takes all kinds, like they say .... :)

Cheers,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: pyr530@oz.plymouth.edu (Rob Holden)
Subject: Re: A new version of Familiars
Reply-To: pyr530@oz.plymouth.edu (Rob Holden)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 21:00:39 GMT


	One last note.  I still feel that the Find Familiar/Summon Familiar
 spell should be handled in the same way as a paladin's quest for his mount.
 This is a creature that will be bonded to the mage for life (one of theirs
 anyways) and as such is a pretty important critter.  
	The last time I used this spell (as a player), I asked the DM for a solo
 quest, using the above reasoning.  I ended up taking a warrior along with me
 (for protection during the casting of the spell) and went to a arid, mountain-
 ous region that was teeming with wildlife.  I wound up with a black cat.  Now
 there was no way in *hell* that there could have been a black cat within 1 
 mile of that site, though there might have other types of felines there.  But
 the DM rolled a 3 and so it was a black cat I would up with.  Might not have 
 been so bad if my mage hadn't been alergic to cats.  :)
	Now when I DM the spell, I take into consideration the type of terrain
 and make a list of "likely" familiars in the area.  Since then, I've seen a
 badger, a monkey, a hyena, a mink, and a flying squirrel for "normal"
 familiars, and the only "unusual" familiar was a korred. (what a riot THAT one
 turned out to be.:)  
	Has anyone else tried using the Small Mammal table from the M.C. for 
 the Find Familiar spell, or using the "terrain-probable" technique?

					Rob
-- 
(~~~~)------------------------------------------------------------------(~~~~)
 |  |            Rob Holden               I'm not prejudiced...,         |  |
 |  |      pyr530@oz.plymouth.edu                 I hate everybody..!    |  |
(____)------------------------------------------------------------------(____)
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.dnd:3308 rec.games.frp.advocacy:1983 rec.games.frp.misc:4682 rec.games.frp:25035
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: HMGS Siege of Gondor?
Keywords: What the hell happenned?
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:17:31 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <26AUG199212292701@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>At GenCon, Saturday afternoon (2:30ish), the Historical Miniatures Gaming 
>Society's event was packed up!  The only explaination I heard was, "they 
>got pissed off at TSR."

  Was those the guys who went around with namelists that protested that they
had to remove their fully functional guilliotine (they had tried it out on
melons) ?
  I know that the main reason the guilliotine-people was pissed was that
TSR didn't have the guts to confront them directly, but used the MECCA people
as enforcers.

>                                                  James S. Zakany

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"
From: quin@deakin.OZ.AU (Daniel Quinlivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Elves and Munckinism.
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:34:51 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Victoria, Australia

In this discussion on elves one limiting thing about elves has been forgotten.
When an elf dies they generally stay dead.   From memory there are about
three ways to raise an elf.   A wish or like power.   A rod of resurrection
and spending a heap of charges.  Divine intervention.
All three of these things are very hard or _should_ be very hard to get done.
Compare this to the realative ease that the dead human gets raised.  All
the party has to find is a cleric that can throw a fifth level spell.
Oh, that is find one bribeable as generally they find one of the wrong
religon to the deceased and then the deceased usually undergoes conversion
and/or loss of a decent percentage of magical items.

But I admit, under first edition an elf fighter/mage that _could_ double
specialize with long sword and wear plate armor wasn't conductive to a
monsters lifespan.  Second edition has toned this nicly with no spell
casting in anything but elven chain(I could be wrong on this).

The elf is still a powerful character but under second edition not an 
"Instant Min/Max Powerhouse".

Bye all :)
******************************************************************************
The only differnce between RL and VR is that RL has a better interface :):):):)
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:38:46 GMT

I say:

>   I guess this is our essential point of disagreement. You say killing is evil
>   I say that it is an essentially neutral act. Why you kill is what makes the
>   killing good or evil, not the act itself.   Otherwise, good dieties wouldn't
>   have any warrior adherents.

Pat says:

>Being a warrior doesn't necesseraly have something to do with killing, at
>least not in a direct fashion/ the PC looks forward to it.

>Think about a cop having a gun and learning to use a gun. Does it mean he;s
>going to want to use it on every crackpot who goes the wrong way of the
>law? Of course not. Well, maybe, but we talk about good alignement, and if
>it isnt's the in the generalition as a rule for most cases, then it's not
>true for at least some subset of "good" cops in hte general group.

Cops aren't warriors by any stretch of the imagination. If you want modern
examples of warrior types, check in the armed forces. You'll find plenty
of men who have no qualms about killing whoever their ruler tells them it
is right to kill.

>Same thing, why do a guy laern to become black belt at karate? 
>So he can be better at killing people? Duh. Of course not.

No, but he is learning to use force to solve his problems. Again, it
is a matter of degree to which one is willing to use violence to obtain
one's wishes.

>And of course killing is not "always" evil, and is shaped by the REASON why
>you kill. Someone killed an animal so I may eat. That doesn't mean I think

That's what I said. Do I get copyrights for that? :) 

Axly
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge A. Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Weapon Specialization
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:27:18 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


No, not another "why can't a thief specialize?" post. :-)


I was reading over weapon specialization, and I noticed somehint that
seemed kind of strange.  The way weapon specialization is described in
the PH, I got the impression that a fighter can only specialize in
ONE weapon.  He may become proficient in others, but he can only
specialize in one.

Am I reading too much into this, or is this a correct assumption?


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Demi-humans vs. Humans
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:14:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug31.143612.6384@iscsvax.uni.edu>, boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.213433.23298@ncsu.edu>, mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu (MICHAEL
>    RONN MARCELAIS) writes:
>> [...]  Of course anyone can be ressurected, but that may mean turning into a
>> different race, loosing half of your levels (if the new race allows your old
>> profession) or all of them (if it doesn't).
> 
>    Whoops, not quite, you're thinking of Reincarnation, not Ressurection. 
> Using Ressurection has no (major) penalties, though some bed rest may be
> required (I know it does for Raise Dead anyway).

	Raise Dead requires bed rest (and the person Raised has 1 HP). A person
who is Ressurected has all their HP, and no convalesence (though the priest is
left weak).

Brandon Cope