HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Suggestions
Keywords: battlelords
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:21:31 GMT

In article <BuBo9r.4o9@acsu.buffalo.edu> v076jy2p@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Cosmo Of The Cosmos) writes:
>As for the skills...
>	I've found the system works well.  Besides, if you have cybernetic
>engineering, what the Hell are you doing in a combat zone?  Get your ass
>in a nice safe lab where you can make oodles of money, and live to enjoy it!

The problem then, is that the skills are not designed well for the genre.
IMHO, one of two things should be selected:  1) the game should not be
advertised as the "complete sci-fi roleplaying game".  Or.  2) the skills
should be rethought to be tailored to the hack & slash nature of the game.


>
>
>As for the races...
>	Yep. Well... in normal life, they'll live together alright.
>But I fear that the Alliance is... *OOMPH*  Oh, hi!  No I wasn't going
>to... *WACK* OK, OK!  Anyways, read Lock-N-Load.  You'll pick up a
>whole lot of info on the state of affairs in the alliance.
>
>
>in short...  Its still in its infant stage.
>
>
>						-Rob G.

Races:  Not quite.  From what I've seen in the rules, these the are the
problems (off the top of my head) from the various races:

Orion Rogues:  A society based on theivery and partying will not be able to
     manage amazing feats of technological splendor, nor would they be able
     to organize themselves to do anything tremendous.

Ram Pythons, Python Lizards:  Big, stupid, and combative.  Should not be
     included in a technologically advanced society.

Phentari:  A society solely hinged on war.  Not going to work, sorry.

Mazian:  Blind and water-based?  What the hell kind of roleplaying are youg
     going to do with a blob like that?  Sure, they can look like humans,
     but if they <can't read> (something their sonar doesn't compensate for!)
     what kind "espionage" duties are they going to be able to form.  I don't
     THINK so!

Eridani:  See Phentari.

The only races that are logical are humans, gen humans, mutzachans, zen rigeln,
tza zen rigeln (in small doses).  Chatilians maybe; but their telepathic powers
would be a bit upsetting, so they'd have to be dealt with carefully.  And then
the cats (name escapes me), are kinda silly.  How do they get their weapons
harnesses on?

If Simms was the only person who worked on this, he'd better learn QUICK to 
find help..

BTW, what's Lock n' Load?  An expansion?  When's it going to be available? Why
haven't I been notified?

...Paul

PS>  What gets me is that Simms was pushing his game when I bought it as being
a really cool game, that doesn't concentrate on combat ("Look, only 4 pages of
combat rules!").  Of course, he neglected to include the 25 types of armor, the
25 types of helmets, the 75 armor options, the 100 weapons, and the six combat
monger character races.  And that's not including the fact that the whole game
concept seems to be "find something and kill it good."

...Paul


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mcs52867@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike)
Subject: btech on the computer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:44:44 GMT

i just downloaded the computer version of btech (mech01b.arj) from the
ftp site, but from there, i have no idea of what to do.
can someone please help a newbie?

mike
mcs52867@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Subject: Re: Gaming boards
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:32:00 GMT

In article <BuIIHv.3FC@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v054nn84@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Foto...Taking pictures again, and Happy for it!) writes...
>In article <wegaTxC00WBLE3LcEY@andrew.cmu.edu>, rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert 
>Everett Brunskill) writes...
>> 
>>PS How can you "hate" a game?
> 
>Easy...the same way I hate my computer when it crashes when I am doing some
>thing that is either fun or important....  ;)
> 

Also because the game system was published long before the testing
was complete so that they (the publishers) could put there system
out before their competetion and thereby get the "first game system"
boost in sales and popularity.  (phew, was that a mouthfull)

The game I have in mind tries to correct the situation with
supplements, but every time a supplement is published, the
balance tips heavily in the direction of the attempted correction.

I'd really rather play a system which is fully developed, fully
tested, and is intelligently thought out to some degree.  There is
always adjustments, but fixing major holes....Not with my money.
From: v054nn84@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Foto...Taking pictures again, and Happy for it!)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Let's talk REAL sci-Fi systems- A Star Wars Commentary
Keywords: Star Wars, reality
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:45:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

WARNING...THIS POST IS A COMMENTARY ON STAR WARS...HIT RETURN IF YOU ARE
NOT INTERESTED (fair warning...what can I say)

In article <+-8y5+l@rpi.edu>, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes...
>As for Star Wars:  The key point was "realism" to begin with.  (Quick Note: I
>am not putting down Star Wars; I don't personally like the system, but I
>really like the setting...)  Star Wars is designed with the "heroic" theme in
>mind, so much so that the player characters are 1.5 times better than an NPC
>to start with, not even considering AFTER they start improving.  I don't
>personally think Star Wars has a very realistic system, but hey; it's not
>really supposed to be.  I think my main problem with it is that it's much too
>complicated for the simplistic results a combat generates.

Paul,

   First,I *was* joking about Star Wars.  I would be the first person to agree
with you that the system is not realistic.  It is a movie game and some license
has been taken to try to bring about the feel of the three movies.  That said,
I too was bothered aboutthe HUGE gap between the players and the rest of the
universe so I tinkered a bit and decided to give the NPCs a fair start to and
considered the players heroes because they get breaks and opportunities (such
as the freedom to go and join the rebel cause in the first place) as being the
factor that makes them heroes.  My players understand this and have told me that
they find the game more challenging over all this way.

    Interestingly enough I do not like the setting as much as I could because 
the designers go too far in trying to keep the players below the level of the
main characters ofthe movies, but what the hey, in my game the players are the
heroes in one part of the galaxy and Luke, Han, and Leia are in another part of
the galaxy.  As for the combat system being too complicated, yes, particulalry
when you get large scale battles (10 or more on *any one side*) going, then the
game bogs down considerably.  I can see where the game designers were coming
from though, the game only slows down because there are mechanics in the game
to allow players to be "more heroic" than normal.  I can see this effect 
occuring in Dream Park too....

Skeksis - What do you mean one of our Star Destroyers is missing *wheeze*?
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Women Gamers
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:02:34 GMT

In article <Bu7BoG.1qq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v054nn84@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Foto...Taking pictures again, and Happy for it!) writes:
>Someone mentioned Lace and Steel and women gamers and my first reaction is huh? 
>The reason for that is Lace and Steel is aimed more at the traditional
>stereotype of the stay-at-home, scheming-coniving-vain-party-hopping socialite,
>which to say the least seems to be an unpopular way to portray woment these
>days.

  I think that the reasoning is that women are also into "romance fiction"
than men are. Our GM was heavily into regency romances, and I think that
this helped her stories a lot.

>  From my experience, the two ladies in my group, are more interested in
>action than being shy and retiring so I have to wonder if the two ladies I am
>gaming with are not representative of the norm for women gamers. Any input on
>this (other than flaming me for some of my player's preferences) would be
>appreicated and of interest.

  Women don't have to be shy and retiring in L&S. The game's heavily into
character interaction, usually at large parties. Our games involved large
parties where people worried about making good impressions on the "right"
people (which depended on who you were interested in), and making the
appropriate people look bad. In this game, talking can be a very
effective form of combat.

-- 
Mike Swaim            | I can see clearly now my brain is gone.
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | I can see all the bicycles in my way.
Rupp doesn't even know who I am,
 much less care what I think
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Knockback
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:17:22 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Sep9.165452.12486@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> wallacew@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Dave Tolmie) writes:
>
>>In my last gaming session, I was involved in a high-tech gunfight, and
>>the question came up of how much knockback a laser gun should do.  I voted
>>'practically none', since the momentum of a laser shot is practically zero.
>>Linked to this was the knockback from a Gauss SMG, since the projectiles
>>are very small, and there is no recoil penalty.

>>It seemed strange that a gun that exerts no force on the firer's hand should
>>knock the target 15 yards down a corridor.  Where is the 'equal and opposite
>>reaction'?  In the case of weapons producing 'surface explosion', I can
>>understand it, but otherwise the knockback should be proportional to the
>>recoil force rather than the damage.

>First, impaling weapons in GURPS, like a crossbow or gauss gun, do NO knock-
>back.  Second, though the knock-back rules are still a bit 'fishy', I justify
>them by telling my self that:
>	A.  The attacker has counter balanced some of the force by bracing
>		himself while firing or swinging.
>	B.  Most of knock-back can be attributed to a stumbling caused by
>		shock, as much as the force of the blow.  There's no way a
>		.45 caliber bullet could apply enough force to lift and carry
>		someone two yards.
>
>If you can't buy into that rationalization, I'd suggest just axing the whole
>knock-back rules for non-explosive weapons....

I disagree -- lasers do 'knockback' based on the blast caused by the
explosion of whatever they hit.  The person firing doesn't have any recoil
since there's no mass to the beam.  But the beam hitting the target causes
the armor (or whatever it hits) to explode, knocking the target back.  That
is, unless the beam is so powerful that it completely vaporises what it
hits, in which case knockback is the least of the target's problems.

The second justification is, from what I've read, the real reason that
people tend to be 'knocked back' by a bullet -- their muscles spasm.  I'm
not sure why that would tend to throw one away from the impact...

>Dave

- Laird
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg)
Subject: Re: GURPS Combat - Step & Wait vs. All Out Attack
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:56:02 GMT

MRM122@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>OK, the flaw here is the the combatant who did step and wait did TWO manuevers
>in one round:  Step & Wait, which turned into Step & Attack (essentially), and
>THEN did All Out Attack.  This is not legal- he already did his action for the
>round. 
[stuff deleted]
>                    Marsh

Wasn't this the sequence:
Combatant 1 turn 1: Step & Wait
Combatant 2 turn 2: All Out Attack (stepping into range of C1).
		    Both gets to attack, the order of the attacks
		    depend on a contest of weapon skills.  Note that
		    C1s is still on his first turn.
Combatant 1 turn 2: All Out Attack
		    Since C2 still is on his first turn he
		    gets *no* active defense due to his AOA.
Combatant 2 turn 2: C2 had better do something *very* clever here.

All Out Attacking and stepping into range someone who has done a
Step & Wait is extremely stupid if you are up against a skilled
opponent.

/Anders Hallberg
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little)
Subject: GURPS: Knockback
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:11:38 GMT


In rgf.advocacy (about movement in GURPS vs. AD&D) there was comment about
knockback from a gun spoiling the aim of a character.  This reminded me
of smething I had been thinking about during a game.

In my last gaming session, I was involved in a high-tech gunfight, and
the question came up of how much knockback a laser gun should do.  I voted
'practically none', since the momentum of a laser shot is practically zero.
Linked to this was the knockback from a Gauss SMG, since the projectiles
are very small, and there is no recoil penalty.

It seemed strange that a gun that exerts no force on the firer's hand should
knock the target 15 yards down a corridor.  Where is the 'equal and opposite
reaction'?  In the case of weapons producing 'surface explosion', I can
understand it, but otherwise the knockback should be proportional to the
recoil force rather than the damage.

This is not limited to high-tech weapons, a sword swing should have a much
higher 'knockback' for a given amount of damage, than a (cross)bow.

In general - the faster it moves, the more damage it should do for the same
knockback; and vice versa - less knockback for same damage.


Also in the rgf.advocacy thread was talk about how a running person was
basically a sitting duck for firearms.  I consider this to be a problem with
GURPS speed/range system - speed is undervalued by a large amount.  Anyone
who has ever played the ball game 'Brandings' (local name may vary - the
principle being one player trying to hit another with a ball) will know
how much harder it is to hit a moving target (even one that isn't dodging)
than a stationary one.   This also seems to be the general opinion of people
who compare stationary target shooting to hunting.

GURPS just adds the speed to the range, so that for Move 5 (average human
running), there is no penalty for any distance over 15 yd - the speed isn't
enough to put the range into the next category.

I propose making Speed a separate modifier - dividing speed by target size
and using the same sort of table as the existing size-range table.
For a human, it works out so that:
Move 1/2 to 1 (walking) gives -1,
Move 2 (fast walk) gives -2,
Move 3 (jog) gives -3,
Move 5 (running) gives -4,
Move 7 (sprinting) gives -5,
Move 10 (trained sprinter) gives -6.

Dodging is *also* applied, if the target can see the firer - but dodging at
anything over a jog is likely to result in a fall (diving aside, etc).

(The full system is more complete, and no more complex, but explanation is
a little tricky)
--
Timothy D Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jaymin@maths.tcd.ie (Jo Jaquinta)
Subject: Re: Star System Generation
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.085420.10742@waikato.ac.nz> calb@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>I'm interested in methods of generating star system, I've got the Traveller 
>system from Book 6 Scouts, which is the best of seen for detail.
	You want to check out "The World Builder's Handbook". It is a *more*
detailed version of Book 6 Scouts for MegaTraveller. To do an average system
fully takes about 7000 dice rolls :-). If this tires you out I have a
Computer Aided Role-Playing program that does it all for you. Maps any planet
down to about 1 pixel = 1.6 KM :-).

			Jo

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jo Grant			| "Love is blind, or so it seems, to make me
jaymin@lanczos.maths.tcd.ie	| offer you my dreams. But after all is said and
44 Bancroft Ave., Tallaght,	| done, a blind man's dreams are not much fun."
Dublin 24, IRELAND		| -- Horslips, "The Blind Can't Lead the Blind"
From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Knockback
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:10:08 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <15SEP92.16848756.0096@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CX6L writes:
> In article <38062@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> (Bryce Koike) writes:

>> I'd vote that unless the laser was incredibly powerful,
>>knockBACK won't have enough of an effect.  A powerful laser hit
>>could very well knock someone DOWN, though, and the existing rules
>>work fine for that, I believe.

> Actually, only cutting and crushing attacks do knocback!
> since a laser is an impaling attack, it does not do any
> knockback, no matter what its wavelength. That ruling on
> knockback is straight from the Basic Set, BTW.

That is what I said when the original poster asked about the Knockback
rules. I think what these guys are saying is that the Knockback rules
(or the choice of damage type for lasers -- impailing) are inaccurate.
They are saying a laser doesn't just peirce its target, it also vaporizes 
a portion thereof, creating a small explosion which could have enough 
power to knock a person back. This sounds reasonable, but I want one of 
those hard-science types (you know, they always show up at about this 
point in threads involving physics) to work it out and tell us what would 
really happen.

I was convinced a long time ago that the Knockback rules in the Basic Set
are just not accurate, and I have been using my own rule. It's basically
a simplified, watered-down version of the original that doesn't allow 
characters to be pushed all over the place like lawn clippings before a 
garden hose.

Okay,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU + ``We're all naked when we're inside out.''
--David Byrne, Buck Naked
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: So-called "dark futures"
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:40:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

jdugger@bagpipe.reed.edu (Jay Dugger) writes:
>Another Brunner work that's downright depressing is The Sheep Look Up.
>This is a world where the environment is much much worse than today, the  
>political climate is basically fascist, and the only way out is mass  
>suicide.  Molly and Case would blow their brains out if they lived there;
>it's that bad.

>Jay Dugger
>jdugger@reed.edu

Not much of a campaign left after the PCs blow their brains out, is
there?  You may drive away all your potential players in the search for
the ultimate roleplaying downer....

Seriously, I enjoyed some of Brunner's books but I wouldn't want to
roleplay there; passively identifying with someone in a hopeless
position is one thing, but actively playing him/her, having to make
decisions and take actions while knowing that everything is meaningless
and hopeless, is too painful and too difficult for me.

I have *had* characters commit suicide; not a particularly good
experience.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: mark@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Matriarchal Societies...Fact or Fiction
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:31:28 GMT
Organization: Simulacron I

In article <Bu99tL.5zx@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v054nn84@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Foto...Taking pictures again, and Happy for it!) writes:
> 
> I am not going to debate the value of Matriarchal socieites despite current
[Stuff Deleted]
> by one philosopher but they seem to run in fear of the idea that men were not
> always in charge???
> 
> No SIG
> 

Sounds like the Peter Principle.  Women don't have one and therefore
never needed to worry about such things.  But the men always had to
rise to the occassion.  :^)

Just joking of course.  Not that that will stop the flamers.  Nor of
people thinking badly of me for even suggesting....  But that's another
subject.  :)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: viktor@mks.com (Viktor Haag)
Subject: Re:  Matriarchal Socieites
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:10:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.170847.26670@nevada.edu> wildcard@nevada.edu ( WildCard !!) writes:
>In article <BuB5uw.HAq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v054nn84@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Foto...Taking pictures again, and Happy for it!) writes:
>>I cannot state categorically that there are any matriarchal socieites in
>>existance today (despite my housemate leaning over and telling me repeatedly
>>about some Arab tribe).
>
>Somehow, I truly doubt your housemate's claim. Mind you I don't have proof
>so no flames. It just seems to me that a highly fervent Muslim society
>(to my knowledge, most Arabs are Muslim) would not take kindly to having
>women in a position of rulership. Fer cryin' out loud, they keep their women
>from showing their faces in public!  Not that I doubt your housemate's
>conviction, nor am I saying that I *know* any more than your housemate about
>the matter. It's just that common sense would dictate...

I do not want to comment directly on the Islamic cultures -- I suspect
that they contain as much variation as, say, the Christian cultures.
The same goes for the Arabic cultures (who may or may not coincide with
Islamic culture -- natch).

However, I think it wise to avoid linking costume with any sort of comment
about the culture as a whole.  These kind of inferences seem very
susceptible to ethnocentric influence and highly charged psychobabble.

I might, for example, claim that, because we do no allow our men to
display their manhood in public for all to marvel at (indicating
their masculinity and potence, especially when erect), we, in effect,
emasculate them, and relegate them to a position of subservience.

Women, however, who wear costumes which reveal their breasts
(indicating their power to attract, create, and nurture life) to greater
and greater extents, possess a true position of authority in our
culture, because we allow them to openly display their power.

The validity of such observations may be highly suspect, but no more 
suspect than the observation you made.  You might, for example,
examine the reasons why Arab women hide their faces in public --
they may be more complex than would appear at first glance (so to speak).



-- 
Viktor Haag					viktor@mks.com
Mortice Kern Systems				(519) 884-2251
35 King North, Waterloo, Ontario		ext. 16
"we are not thugs. we are vitamin supplements to justice ..." | a selector
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc