HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:52:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

>Remember the example of the 
>floorboards? The players find the gem BECAUSE they search, not because
>the gem was there to be found. That is not how it works in reality. 

>Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU  ``You know, I thought this was a
>good idea but this is one weird mama-jama.''  -- TV's Frank, MST3K

In this case, preparation is like classical physics:  the gem was there
whether anyone looked or not.

And improvisation is like quantum physics:  the gem was undecided until
someone looked.

Oddly enough, at a sufficiently fine level of detail the universe may
resemble improv more than prep....

I think the strict-preparation argument is a little silly, because
there's no way to prepare to such a level of detail that you won't have
to improvise, so if improvisation is lethal to the campaign, all our
campaigns are dead.  You may decide the gem is there:  how many carats
is it?  What clarity?  How many facets?  Is there dust on it (indicating
it's been there a while) or has it been disturbed recently?  What kind
of wood is that floorboard?  How thick?  Any knots in it?  You may not 
think these things matter--but the players may ask them anyway, and they 
may even be correct in thinking they're important.  (Perhaps one of them 
knows a spell which you've forgotten about, requiring a clear diamond of 
no less than 2 carats.)

It's just a question of how much improv you are comfortable with, and
individual answers clearly vary a lot.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: SRun: Mag 3 Cyber Eyes in Combat
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:46:19 GMT

mxr@neptune.dsc.com (Max "Bombastic Dislocated Laughter Retribution" Rible) writes:

>rhunt@med.unc.edu (Rick Hunt) writes:
>>For .1 essense or less and 11,000 Y, I have no intention of letting 
>>them reduce the firearm range of every combat to short.  Is this the 
>>general concensus of the net.srun.gurus?  Help a poor beginning 
>>Shadowrun GM.

>Our ruling is that it takes an action per range category you're
>reducing a shot by.  This stacks with Aiming, too, but it prevents
>people from performing insane shots in the middle of combat.
>(It's too difficult to steady your firearm to match your magnified
>vision.)

This is a good workable rule.

The house rule we had was that an action to brace and steady the gun
was required to take advantage of the magnification--subject to GM
judgement about what was needed to help brace.

	Examples:  1 range category reduction:     stand still
		   2 ...		     :     lean against wall for
						   support
		   3 ...		     :     table to rest elbows on

I think that using this rule combined with the one previously suggested would
be better still.


--Peter


______________________________________________________________________________
						|
     "Guards!  Let me draw their fire!"		|	p-white@uiuc.edu
		   --Scapegoat,_Marshal Law_	|
______________________________________________________________________________
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: What price a soul?
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:59:24 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <1992Aug14.172054.24394@colorado.edu>, juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
>In article <Bsz8Jv.E46@math.uwaterloo.ca> jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson) writes:
>>I'm designing a Gurps character who has the interesting feature
>>of having traded his soul to the Devil 
>>for some specific advantages.  As part his part of the bargain, 
>>the character has to kill one person every week, or he will lose the
>>abilities and suffer other grievous consequences.
>>
>>I'm trying to fit this into Gurps by having a disadvantage
>>Demonic Agreement added to the game.  My problem is cost.
>>I'm not sure how much this disadvantage should be worth;
>>none of the disadvantages in the Basic set seem comparable.
>
>First rule of disadvantages -- you buy the effect, not the special effect.
>It's simply a Vow, possibly with attendant Bad Reputation.
>
>	- kitten

Sounds a little like a Clerical Investment, though.  You might check out the
relevant section in GURPS Magic, especially if any magical powers are included
in the bargain.  This gives good guidelines on what penalties for not holding
up your end of the bargain with a deity should be....

Also, if this is a prospective PC, CONSULT YOUR GM.  No amount of yammering we
netters might do will matter a whit if your GM disagrees.  If it's a
possible NPC, why do you care what the point value is?  Just do it.





-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Heros of Yesterday - on line?
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:33:57 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

I recently bought Heros of Yesterday (the background generation system).
What I'd like is to have this on line. Has anybody typed in the charts (in
whatever form) and is willing to distribute them?  I can supply whatever
proof of purchase that you want so that you can verify that I've bought the
book (which I THINK means that there should be no copyright issue, I believe
that I have the right to type the information in the book into the computer
so long as I only use it myself).
From: hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Re: What price a soul?
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.204336.18152@intelhf.hf.intel.com+ hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
+In article <1992Aug14.172054.24394@colorado.edu> juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
++In article <Bsz8Jv.E46@math.uwaterloo.ca> jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson) writes:
++>I'm designing a Gurps character who has the interesting feature
++>of having traded his soul to the Devil 
++>for some specific advantages.  As part his part of the bargain, 
++>the character has to kill one person every week, or he will lose the
++>abilities and suffer other grievous consequences.
++>
++>I'm trying to fit this into Gurps by having a disadvantage
++>Demonic Agreement added to the game.  My problem is cost.
++>I'm not sure how much this disadvantage should be worth;
++>none of the disadvantages in the Basic set seem comparable.
++
++First rule of disadvantages -- you buy the effect, not the special effect.
++It's simply a Vow, possibly with attendant Bad Reputation.
+
+Wrong.  It's got the component of "automatic retribution" which is not part
+of a Vow.  It's a lot more like a Patron and Duty, combined, with some
+predefined effects that will turn the Patron into an Enemy.
+
+Actually, it's not even those.   Congrats, Johan, you've come up with
+something really new and nasty...
+
+I see two parts.  First, the book-keeping involved in determining point cost
+and benefits.  Second, the mechanic of how it will work in play.
+
+The second part first.  The agreement would grant a set of abilities or
+conditions.  It consists of a set of advantages gained, and some Duty
+which is attached.  Two possibilities on breach-of-agreement: 1) the abilities
+remain, 2) the abilities are lost.   If they remain, then what kind of
+penalty/retribution is the result?  Ditto if they vanish.  Finally, how
+likely is it that the breach will occur?
+
+I would suggest that the Unholy Thing with whom the agreement is signed,
+is a "free" Patron of N points value.  The Duty should approximately match
+the cost of the advantages gained.  Failing in the Duty has the defined result,
+which can consist of changing the "free" Patron into an Enemy of that many
+points, as well as possibly removing the advantages.

I forgot to add one point here:  There's absolutely nothing that requires
that the contract be with an "unholy thing" - it could be the basis of the
Paladin's powers, etc....

Hutch
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Organization: The Banzai Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:46:14 GMT

As a player, I think I'd rather have a GM run his games in improv-mode.
From the campaigns I've been in, within a number of game systems, the most
fun has been had by all when the GM is winging it almost ALL of the time.
Running games from a basic skeleton of ideas allows the players to really
get into their PC's and take control of the course of the game.  

As a GM, my experience is very limited, so far.  The few games I have run
have been almost completely in improv-mode and things went quite smoothly.
The most I would have prepared would be maps for the world(s) we'd be on,
maps of any buildings we might confront and maps of a few cities in case
things go quite differently than what was planned.  And, if the players
`decide' to go off the map, let them.  It can be interesting to watch how
things go when so many people are letting themselves be creative.  Pne thing
that IS necessary for improv-mode is a GM who knows the rules of the system
VERY well.  Unless the GM has the where-with-all to wing it with
`what-to-to-when' type of scenarios.

The only thing that can really bollux this up is if you have some players
that just can't play within a skeletally designed adventure ... but the
creative GM can always find something good to do with someone who isn't
cooperating.  ;-)


Steve J. White
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
skeptic@large@9600bps
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: ALternate Gaming Groups
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:46:46 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

Has anybody out there come up with some unusual situations for running their
group? Here's a couple of ideas for what I have in mind:

 1. The party members all belong to the same extended family, either by
    marriage or birth. The setting could be something like Renaissance
    Italy in one of the city state. The party members are trying to hold
    together the family fortune in the face of several other rich families.
    The whole setting would be in a fantasy world, with wizards and the
    works.

 2. The player characters have all joined an underworld crime organization.
    While cooperating to further the organization, they are also plotting to
    backstab one another. Lots of politics.

Etc. I'm just curious to know if anyone is trying anything a little more
radical in role-playing, or if everybody is a happy camper with the usual
type of setup. (Please, no Paranoia blurbs. I'm curious about alternate
group styles, not alternate game styles.)
-- 
 Bob Hall, Systems Analyst | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
 Boeing Computer Services  | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SRUN: Questions from the Minotaur (Part X)
From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:13:05 GMT
Distribution: usa

covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin) writes:
>My heart bleeds for the poor Physical Adept constrained to snaillike
>meatbody initiative. :)  In the game in which I currently play, *no one*
>is faster when astrally projecting than when moving physically;
>everyone is significantly slower on the astral plane.  This is because
>when astrally projecting, you lose those nifty initiative bonuses for
>Increase Reaction +4 or (better) the Physical Adept's equivalent.
>This matters a lot more than the puny +5 initiative bonus for astral
>projection.

In SRII, this bonus goes to +20.

Wordman
From: jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: ALternate Gaming Groups
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:57:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center



An upcoming fantasy post-holocaust campaign I'm going to be a player in
has an interesting premise:  All of the initial PCs are inhabitants of
the same village who happen to have survived a great disaster.  (In fact,
they're the only survivors.)
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:4046 rec.games.frp.advocacy:1826
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Champions - Ambush - What are the rules?
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:50:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <16eh22INNdpt@early-bird.think.com> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>>	The difference in the system is that Champions makes ambushes 
>>effective without making them neccessarily more deadly - becuase the STUN 
>>damage is doubled but not the BODY. Yes, if the villians are bloodthirsty 
>>then you have to 'crock' it to let the PC's survive, but if not, then 
>>just let them strike full force at the PC's. The PC's will be knocked 
>>out most likely, but will take no more BODY damage than from a non-ambush 
>>assault. 
>
>
>The "crock" is that ambushes in Champions are covered by a completely
>unrealistic rule that for some reason ambushers do twice as much (stunning)
>damage as they would normally do, with the same weapons, and that, even
>weirder, weapons that do twice as much stun damage don't have their body
>damage likewise increased.  I suppose Champs needs something like this
>since without this "crock" the rules don't model ambushes well at all,
>since you just end up with one normal round of attack, which doesn't
>normally mean that much in Champs.  But arbitrary rules like this in games
>make me a bit leery.

I've always used the 2*STUN rule as doubling AFTER armour penetration. The
actual rules as written seem ambiguous to me but this just makes the most
sense (you're reaction to pain will be greater if you aren't expecting it
but it still takes the same physical force to get through the armour!!).

Is this actuall a house rule? I'm using ONLY 4th edition rules, so if you
quote rules please quote from this version.

Even if it is a house rule, I like the effect of it. Makes little difference
for the minimally armoured types but means that it is still difficult to put
the brick down (and being hard to put down is, after all, one of the primary
roles of the brick).
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dunning@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (GALACTIC COMMANDER)
Subject: Re: Speaking of ambushes (where we?)...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.005209.58171@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>Ambushes have been sort of a big topic in my campain lately. Both for
>the players and for me. Here is my dillema. 
>
>My characters are fairly bright (for mortals), and they are really 
>paranoid about getting ambushed. For that reason, they routinely avoid 
>areas on the map where there is the slightest chance to be ambushed. I'm 
>perplexed on how to ambush the characters. The party is a squad in a 
>military organization, so they often go on patrol. Lately,I have been 
>marking areas on my GM's map where there will be ambushes, but the party 
>never goes into my kill zones. Now, I don't want to kill the PCs off, but 
>I would like to see them have to react and defend more, rather than being 
>always on the offense. 

Actually they are acting in a very un-militaristic manner.  The idea of a
scouting party is to spot the ambushes and trip those they can deal with
and alert the remaining forces to those they can't deal with.  What is the
point behind sending out scouts if the avoid area where they might be
attacked.  Imagine the converation:

SGT:  How come Patrol 10 didn't locate the ambushers in the woods!!!  We
	lost half the column from those damned archers.

PATROL:  Well sir, we thought we might be ambushed there so we didn't
	investigate those woods.

SGT:  Well I am sure the General will have some words with you over the
	loss of half his fighting force.

The big thing to remember is that ambushers move.  If the patrol avoids the
woods because some ambushers might be in there.  Eventually the ambushers
would move closer to the camp always hiding were this patrol didn't go.
What would there superiors say when a suprise attack is launched from the
woods where they refuse to go (even though it is in their patrol area).  In
a normal army they would be busted in rank and probably be brought up on
charges of cowardice.  Even worse would happen if someone important died or
something tragic happened.

Chip

-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
 Elwood H Dunning III         |     I am a pirate, I don't
  GALACTIC COMMANDER          |           DO decency!!

--

-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
 Elwood H Dunning III         |     I am a pirate, I don't
  GALACTIC COMMANDER          |           DO decency!!
From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Astral Adepts
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:50:40 GMT

holmes@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Krishgan) writes:

>Concerning Lester Wards' (Wordmans) comments on Astral Adepts-
>  1.  The Astral Adept that I suggested is FAR different from a Shamanic
>    Adept in two (2) primary ways.

Both correct.

>  2.  The total reaction bonus for the Astral Adept is 12 in the case that
>    you listed (Grade 2 mage with Reaction of 4).  Oh yeah, btw, the Astral
>    Reaction is -NOT- the reaction of the caster, as the Reaction attribute
>    is the average of quickness and intelligence, which is JUST intelligence
>    in the Astral.

That's why I mentioned his Int of 4 and didn't bring up his reaction, but
whatever.

>  3.  Your "AA that is wicked fast in the Astral" is not.

Using SRII rules, my AA (with 6 Int and 6 Magic) will get an average of
35 for an initiative roll.

Wordman
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board
From: rburr@shlump.nac.dec.com (Rod Burr)
Subject: Re: Strategic Fantasy Battle Simulator
Keywords: Strategy, Fantasy
Reply-To: rburr@shlump.nac.dec.com (Rod Burr)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:14:04 GMT


This is a re-write of a posting I sent yesterday that seems not to have
made it onto the net.

If you're interested in miniatures, with similar time requirements as the
PRESTAGS series, you should definitely look into HORDES OF THE THINGS.
This is another set of rules in the DE BELLIS ANTIQUITATIS rules series. The
original rules cover the period roughly 3000 BC to 1453 BC. They use 12 
element/stands per army and give battles that can normally be resolved within
30 minutes to an hour. HORDES OF THE THINGS adds new troop classifications for
various fantastic and magical types, and a points system since the range in
individual troop capabilities is much greater than in the original DBA. The
games should still require a limited number of figures and be playable in
about the same amount of time. The rules booklet also includes simple campaign
rules and army lists for many well know fantasy worlds such as Middle Earch,
the Hyborean Age, ERB's Mars, etc.

							Rod Burr
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Astral Adepts-
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:37:59 GMT
	<RATINOX.92Aug19213126@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<ward1.714319815@husc8>
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 20 Aug 92 14:10:15 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> "LW" == Lester Ward <ward1@husc8.harvard.edu> writes:

LW> I completely disagree with this interpretation.  The reason you can use
LW> Conjuring as a .combat. skill to attack spirits is that you know a lot
LW> about spirits.  If you knew a lot about .combat. (and most magicians
LW> don't) then you'd just use that knowledge to attack anything.  In other
LW> words, I believe it means Conjuring will work against Spirits (because
LW> Conjuring is knowledge) of spirits), Sorcery will work against spells
LW> and other astral things (because sorcery is the ability to manipulate
LW> astral space), but combat skill will work against anything (because
LW> combat is the knowlegde of doing damage).

Then why allow astrally projecting Physical Adepts to study Sorcery--Astral
Combat only? Their Armed and Unarmed Combat skills should be significantly
better than any Sorcery skill they'd pick up.

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Astral Adepts-
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:54:23 GMT
	inter.coe.northeastern.edu><ward1.714319815@husc8>
	<RATINOX.92Aug20123759@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<ward1.714336868@husc8>
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 20 Aug 92 18:54:28 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> "LW" == Lester Ward <ward1@husc8.harvard.edu> writes:

>Then why allow astrally projecting Physical Adepts to study Sorcery--Astral
>Combat only? Their Armed and Unarmed Combat skills should be significantly
>better than any Sorcery skill they'd pick up.

LW> Exactly.  Why do it?

Because your interpretation doesn't match Fasa's, obviously.

LW> Although I've seen Phys Ads who had nothing to do with Combat, so the
LW> stereo-type isn't exactly true.

LW> BTW, from SRII (and I'm pretty sure SRI as well):

[...]

LW> Using conjuring against Spirits is not mentioned except in the section
LW> on spirits, and there it applies only to attacking spirits in the
LW> meatworld; it is mentioned only in the sence that Conjuring can be used
LW> by magicians instead of Will or Bod when attack by spirits on the
LW> mundane plane.

Are you using the Grimoire? Check page 66, left column, under Astral
Combat. It very specifically states that Conjuring can't be used as a
Defense Pool against spells, and vice-versa.

LW> Also, I mistated myself in another post, the "assencing adept's" base
LW> initiative roll would be 41, which is enough to give him an extra
LW> action (action decriment is 20 instead of 7).

You give me numbers with nothing to compare against. How the hell does this
compare with SRII's PAs, cybered Samurai, etc?

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.