HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:06:21 GMT

On Apr 8,  1:40pm, David Oakes wrote:
> [sean's "personal axioms" deleted]
> 
> i think we are getting abit compartmentalized here -
> is everyone in the TORG-verse living in their own cosm?
> (and if i had a "personal" tech of 24, why does it become 23
>  when i leave CE? not to mention those bushmen (tech <15) who
>  can become rocket scientists just by disconnecting to CE tech!)

You miss my point -- if you are a native of a cosm with a Tech axiom
of 23, but the culture you were raised in has a Tech axiom of 12, then
it's your understanding and belief limits that prevent you from keeping
a VCR operating; left to itself, the VCR will work; if _you_ play with
it enough, you'll eventually fail a contradiction check, and it'll
stop working. If _you_ disconnect, _your_ axiom is still 12. However,
someone can take you out of your culture and teach you the background
material to let you understand VCRs -- a personal axiom is a limit of
knowledge and belief, not one of physical law, and you can change it a
great deal more easily than you can change a cosm's. 

The section about limiting people to the axiom limits of their home
cosm when outside it is because there is no current good explanation
for how somebody pushes their cosm to increase an axiom locally; it
gives an example of a research group, but it doesn't explain the lone
inventor that characterized much of the mid-range tech advances.

> the axioms are variable, and can go up (or down) with the populous.
> if the entire planet turned to god to win the war, spirit soars,
> conversly, everybody could lose faith, bringing it down.

So if we get enough primitive tribes and 'appropriate technology'
fanatics working hard enough at it, all our VCRs will stop working?

> dave "you are a product of your preconceptions" oakes

"People get so used to looking at the universe in terms of little
labelled boxes that they believe that, when you change the labels, the
universe is different. When you change the labels, you don't change
the universe; you simply change the way you look at it."

-- 
random sig #44:
Sean Malloy                                  | I wish there were a knob on the
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | TV to turn up the intelligence.
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | There's one called 'brightness',
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | but it doesn't work.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re:  How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:15:40 GMT

Mark C. replies:

> Kansas Jim writes:
> >
> >Yes, axioms are increased through various means; research won't really
> >increase the Tech axiom though as it is only the scientists that
> >believe in the new technology.  But once something has made it out
> >into 'the real world' and enough people accept the new technology, the
> >axiom goes up in response.  (Until the axiom does go up, the new tech
> >is 'error-ridden', 'glitch-filled', or just malfunctions a lot.)
> 
> That seems rather silly to me; sort of an Idealist view of the axioms (i.e,
> the axioms are what you want them to be) It seems pretty stupid to call
> something an 'axiom' if it changes according t the belifs of the
> population.
> 
> KJ's explanation (whether it accords with the 'official' WEG line or not)
> has some holes in it: why should people belive in error-ridden
> glitch-filled technology? 

Because someone tells them that it works?  Think about things we
consider to be reliable technology; VCRs, TVs, computers, cellular
phones, etc - when these things were first introduced to the market
were they perfect or did they tend to have problems?  Did people have
problems understanding these 'newfangled things'?

And yes, it is in line with the 'official' WEG line on axioms.

> >> I prefer to see things this way: the axioms measure the upper bounds of
> >> things. So CE's Social and Tech axioms have always been as high as they
> >> are; democracy ahs always been possible, but it takes time to develop.
> >> Conversely, the magic and spiritual axioms allow for moderately powerful
> >> spells and miracles, but most people do not belive in, or use, that
> >> knowledge. 
> >
> >If that were the case then you could never develop a higher social or
> >tech axiom and the society would stagnate once you reached the upper
> >limits.  
> 
> 'stagnate' is a strong word. I don't think it is a bad thing that every
> cosm has its limits imposed by the axioms. I prefer to think that Core
> Earth is the way it is (partly) because it has the axioms it does, not the
> other way around. It is the axioms which shape the worlds, not vice-versa. 

Axioms shape how the living interacts with the nonliving; if enough of
the living push at that boundary the axioms adjust.

> >> So the Living Land can *never* have magic, for example.
> >
> >If you were able to convince a sizable portion of the Living Land
> >population of the existance of magic energies you would get magic in
> >the Living Land.
> 
> Good luck convincing people of this with a magic axiom of zero...

I never said it would be easy.  8-)

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Subject: Re: Psionics and Magic
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:20:25 GMT

aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew David Weiland) writes:

>David Rose writes,

>>I think that Tech and Social is stable only as a matter of circumstance
>>and they are no more inherently stable than the other two.

>I think the rules state otherwise, but I'll have to look it up.  But I'm
>not hostile to your idea.  Sometimes history makes more sense if you
>suppose that there are periodic axiom shifts after which society takes a
>long time to catch up.  

  Rulebook (p. 97) "Bending the Axioms"
    para 3 - "Tech and Social axioms can increase as much as two
             points, although one point increases are far more common.
             These increases last only briefly ..."

    para 4 - "Spiritual and Magical axioms *appear* [emphasis mine]
             to be somewhat more flexible..."

    Note: "Bending the Axioms" is a section on TEMPORARY axiom shifts.
      The section on permanent axiom changes does not mention directly
      any preference for the axioms, although the example given, Haiti,
      uses the Magical axiom.


>>  Q:  What attribute would you base a sexual performance skill on?

>Sexual skills, um, can be Dexterity based or Charisma based; they are
>concentrations of the Dance and Performance skills (new skills I use,
>I'll post them someday soon).

  My own assumption would be dexterity based, but I also assume
that skills are really a mixing of attributes, where the base
attribute is the most important.  (Hence, although climbing is a STR
based skill, I think that it is the application of DEX and PER to
what would otherwise be a more brute force approach.  That these
attributes are not explicitly mentioned is more for reasons of simplicity
and playability than for realism or completeness.)

  (BTW, I think WEG goofed making Running and Swimming DEX based.  I
think that they are STR based.  Again, based upon my philosophy espoused
above.)

>I do the same, but I say that Toughness is a physical attribute because
>we exist on a primarily physical plane (exception ghosts, constructs). 

  More true of CE than of other areas, I think.  I resist that interpretation
(which is, IMO, borne out by the Rules) because it is so unsymmetrical.

>One of my weirder ideas was treating Charisma as Spiritual Dexterity;
>and basing Focus on Charisma.  Which makes a sort of sense when you
>think about it, as Focus is in part a function of leadership ability.

  Not at all.  I treat Charisma the same way.  I never thought about
the Focus skill, though.  Probably would want to keep it Spirit based,
as there are too few Spirit based skills already.

>Andrew "Don't change the Cyberpapacy, it's bad enough already" Weiland

  Heh, heh.
--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu>
Subject: The Torg Arms Race
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:02:39 GMT

> IMHO, the weapons and armor from Tharkhold and the Cyberpapacy
> have been inflated so much that PCs are almost forced to use similar gear, no
> matter what it does to their character conception, merely to stay alive.
> This is silly, and the group that I've been playing with has been discussing
> some sort of mutual disarmament pact.  I.e. throw those GodBeams out the
> window.  How has anyone else dealt with this problem.

Hallelujah. Someone who agrees with me about this problem! Our group
really doesn't have a solution.... almost all party members are
carrying some type of fully automatic weapon, and everyone wears some
sort of armor... needless to say we both deal and get hit for a lot
of damage.

I think automatic weapons should be difficult to get a hold of -- but
the problem is already out of hand. We are in the LL right now, though.
Perhaps some of those weapons will become "lost."

> Johann Hibschman

-- 
Chris Pearce -- cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
--
  "Darling, stop slouching"
      - General to an unconscious Capt Darling (headbutted by Flash), BA4
From: rwt@stiatl.salestech.com (Roger Terrell)
Subject: Poisons
Keywords: TORG
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 20:03:19 GMT


Do any of the sourcebooks address poisons?  I have a player who has
CyberFangs with injector sacs, but none of the books I have seem to
talk about poisons and/or drugs in great detail...

Roger
-- 
Roger Terrell
UUCP: ...!uupsi!stiatl!rwt
Internet: rwt@stiatl.salestech.com
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Campaign variations
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:31:37 GMT

Maybe I should wait until after the Infiniverse Update comes out later this 
month, but it may also be a good idea to get a head start on the subject....

The question is: how does everyone's campaign differ from the 'official'
campaign (ie, the one detailed in Infiniverse)?  I know that there are many
non-subscribers out there so they won't be able to answer in any great 
detail but there are some things that are obvious changes (establishing the
Aztec Empire, not using a cosm, having a home-grown cosm land on Earth, etc).

Mine's been pretty mainstream so far, I'm afraid.  I still haven't reached
a decision on Tharkold (does it arrive or doesn't it?) but more than likely
I'll go ahead and use it.   Haven't gotten around to using "Temple of Rec
Stalek" yet either (could cause a big divergence from the WEG campaign).
I will be sticking with the Wu Han 'problem' (see Strange Tales From the Nile
Empire) not because it's "official" but because I think it will make for
some interesting situations.

Let's see (as he pulls up a new window containing his campaign's timeline)...

Due to the PCs efforts, the Nile almost managed to ally itself with the US
against the Living Land (really a diabolical plot of course; Mobius was
still working with Baruk Kaah, tricking the US into helping Kaah wipe out
renegade tribes).  However, I gave them a second chance to fix the situation
and they sort of managed to do it. 

The Nile presence in the Land Below was pretty much wiped out (minor change
though, since the DD wants Nile people there; it just sends more).

A lot of Iverse dispatches and rumors don't occur in the months that they
are 'supposed' to occur in.

The Red Hand has been killed twice (about par for a pulp villain 8-) and I'm
thinking of having the latest death be permanent (or at least have it last
long enough that Mobius appoints someone new as Overgovernor of that part of
the Nile Empire).  But this might become an official part of the WEG campaign
if my rumor submission gets accepted and enough subscribers vote Yes....

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:03:26 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <rose.703179993@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne) writes:
>
>>But seriously, in Aysle the Law of Observation says that nothing exists unless
>>it can be observed.  Since sub-atomic particles can't be observed, then they
>>don't exist.  You have to remeber that the laws of physics are different, or
>>might not even exist in other cosms.  A lot of the physics discussions going
>>on about the Living Land have got to remember that.
>
>  [regarding discussion of physics in LL]
>
>  There remains a reason for discussing physics in the LL, even if one
>assumes that the physics is different.  The reason is PLAYABILITY.
>It is O.K. for airplanes who's pilots disconnect to suddenly plummet
>to the earth, but the GM who does this needs some consistency in
>determining what does happen.
>
>  1.  So that the GM can try to make rulings about effect consistent
>      and be able to remember consistently what these rulings were.
>
>  2.  So that the GM can more effectively communicate to the players
>      how the "physics" of LL works.
>
>  It isn't enough to wave the magic wand and say it's different.  One
>must have a clear idea of how it is different, so that when someone
>else asks "What if?" one may consider and attempt an answer.
>

I wasn't trying to wave a magic wand and try to make things go away.  Physics,
in whatever form it exists in in these other cosms, does make a difference.
My problem is with people trying too hard to make our physics work in some
places, like the LL.  Like the bow discussion.  I think it was Sean who was
talking about how a thicker, longer branch could hold his weight, and therefore
should make a more powerful bow.  I say that the bigger stronger branch will
hold his weight, but it will still only provide enough power for hunting.
There has to be some consistency, but there are places where hand waving is
necessary.

BTW, my opinion on the plane in the LL is this:  engine unsupported, composite
materials making up the plane unsupported, gliding okay with me.  So, engine
will konk out, plane will glide down, and will decompose at the normal rate
(I don't know what the normal rate is, I haven't read the LL SB).

>--
>David Rose
>Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
>251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
>rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re:  shapeshifters
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:58:16 GMT

Kevin Hudson(hudson@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu) wishes:
 ! ==> On Mon, 13 Apr 92, Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu> said:
 ! 
 !   RJ> 	According to the Orrorsh Sourcebook, shapeshifting is
 !   RJ> supported only by Orrorsh, like pulp powers are supported only
 !   RJ> Nile Axioms.
 ! 
 ! I would think that it would be supported anywhere with a Magic Axiom
 ! of 12 or higher (the lower limit on when highly magical being can
 ! exist).  Aren't there werewolves in Aysle?

i am not happy with the "Orrorsh only shapeshifters,"
but since they have powers limited to Orroshian horrors,
i could see that they are dependant on the LoFear.

in general, i would say shapeshifting is magically based,
and requires an axiom of 10(?), the minimum for 
transformations of living to living.

dave "shape me, baby!" oakes
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (BRANDON COPE)
Subject: Re:  trick shots
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:16:18 GMT


What about having the Fast Draw skill simply mean that you don't have to use an
action to draw a weapon? If you really screw up, you drop the gun (or worse),
but a normal failure just means that you have to spend an action to draw the
weapon anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!  a generous and sadistic GM,  ! "Just a traveller, on an endless flight !
!	Brandon Cope		!  But no matter which way I turn, I      ! 
!-------------------------------!  	journey into the night;		  !
! a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu	!  Going round in circles, til the 	  !
! z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu	!	mountians fall,			  !
!-------------------------------!  To believe in so many truths,	  !
! "But ... but ..., it's NOT	!  Makes no sense at all,		  !
!  our fault!"			!  Makes no sense at all"	          !
!      Kei and/or Yuri		!	the Alan Parsons Project	  !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu>
Subject: Axiom levels, etc.
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:03:04 GMT


> Using your example of the Aristotelian
> world-view, as soon as it was pointed out that various of the planets
> did _not_ always move in circles (retrograde motion), then that
> world-view no longer made sense; it took the addition of epicyclic
> motion to bring the world-view back into accord with the perceived
> reality.

Main point:
But could it not be true that in the process of OBSERVING the existing
laws of Aristotlean physics, some brilliant astronomers CHANGED them?

At least, that is what I believe the changing of a Tech axiom represents:
incremental changes to the actual laws of Physics. 

Aside:
As for where items are placed in the Tech chart, I suggest that, since 
(probably) experts disagree when such technology was used, that you'll 
likely be able to find all kinds of inconsistencies. As for your compass 
example, perhap TL12 (or 17, can't remember) is the first Tech level at 
which the stabilized compass was produced, making oceangoing navigation 
much easier.

Another aside:
You mention the airplane's gliding as a function of its wing shape --
in CE Tech 23, this law of physics holds. However, perhaps under Living
Land axioms it doesn't. As a result, the example should have had the
plane plummet from the sky, but I also realize that attempting to
put too much into in introductory player's scenario would defeat the
main purpose of that scenario: allowing new players (and GMs) to get the
feel of spending Possibilities and using the bonus chart.

Last aside:
You mentioned the problem with bows, yet in a following refutation you
talk about the higher mass stick being able to transmit more energy
into the arrow, thereby introducing high TL concepts into a low TL
example. Living Land physics may not work in the same way. I can see
an Edeinos refuting your argument: "Energy? Mass? Huh? It's a bow -
and all bows inflict blessed painful sensations!"

-- 
> Sean Malloy                                  | 

-- 
Chris Pearce -- cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
--
  "We're in a sticky situation all right. This is the stickiest situation 
   since Sticky the Stick insect got caught on a sticky bun."
      - EB, BA4
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: James H. Kiley<jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Aztec Empire
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:11:52 GMT

Oh, god, World Laws?

SPOILERS FOR HIGH LORD OF EARTH, MAYBE.  SO AVERT YER EYES, OR SOMETHING.










Does this mean that enough people actually 'lost' HLOE that they decided
to put them together, or do ya think there was just an outcry for them?

IMHO, the adventure itself was pretty poor, although the bits at the end
involving the messing-with-the-Storm-Knights'-heads was nice.

And what kind of WL's would the Aztec Empire have, anyway?
The Law of Ripping Hearts Out Of Still-Living Bodies?
The Law of Those Damn Pyramids?
What?

Jim Kiley			|"Fighting fire with empty words,
jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu		|"While the banks get fat, the poor stay poor,
ba-py403@andy.bgsu.edu		|"The rich get rich, the cops get paid 
jkiley@dad.bgsu.edu		|"To look away as one percent rules America"
				
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Test
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:16:40 GMT

> Is the list alive?

	I think so.  I've been missing some mail lately, but it's shown
up on alt.games.torg.

	Claaaaaaaaaay?

-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:06:34 GMT

Sean Malloy(malloy@nprdc.navy.mil) wonders:

[lots o'stuff deleted - i refuse to get involved in the sailboat dilemma]

(as far as the magnet goes, who's to say that a higher magic axiom
 didnt support the magnetite on a string - they belived it was magic,
 or a gift of the gods - until such time that tech could figure out 
 what was really happening)

but to the point at hand:
 ! Earth's Tech axiom always 23, and it simply took the incremental
 ! development of technology to reach it? 

i dont think that this was reasonable.
since (as i said before) you get a bonus to a science roll based on your AXIOM,
the first person who tried to assemble something beyond his tech level
(but within his tech axiom) would get it right, and it would not fail,
since it would be supported by the AXIOM

dave "VCR clocks are a Nippon (Tech 24) plot!" oakes