HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: Throw away your greatsword! ( Big vs. Small Weapons )
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:26:19 GMT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.

As an example of how one game system handles one-handed vs two-handed weapons,
here's a Rolemaster example.

For those unfamiliar with Rolemaster, here are some definitions:

Concussion Hits - Accumulated damage, pain, and bleeding, that can lead to
	shock, unconsciousness, and sometimes death. Each character can take
	a certain number of hits before passing out.
Critical Strike - Unusual damage due to a particularly effective attack.
Defensive Bonus(DB) - The total subtraction from the combat roll due to the
	defender's advantages, including bonuses for the defender's quickness,
	shield, armor, position, parry, and magic items.
Offensive Bonus(OB) - The offensive bonus is added to any attack rolls made with
	a weapon, and includes bonuses for stats, superior weapon, skill,
	magic items, position, etc.
Parry - The use of part (or all) of a character's OB in order to increase DB.

When comparing two-handed weapons vs a broadsword, for example, the two-handed
weapon will:
	have more frequent, and more severe, critical strikes
	deliver more concussion hits (about 1.5-3x), more often

This is mitigated by several factors:
	A shield cannot be used. Especially for combatants in heavier
	    armor types, this is a substantal fraction of total DB.
	Two-handed weapons fumble about twice as often
	A maximum of 50% of OB may be used to parry a one-handed weapon
	If an initiative system is used, two-handed weapons take longer to
	    draw and swing
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
From: Jonathan Egre' <jonathan@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:48:48 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

> ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (E. Chris Garrison) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul28.185143.23188@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> cassidy@cps.msu.edu.c
> >>In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (C
> >>>Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And D
> >>>give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail m
> >>>after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
> >>>						Chris
> >>
> >>	The 19th century creation that I think you are refering to is
> >>"Gollum" by Tolkien.  However, I beleive that there is a legendary
> >>creature called a "golem" in Eastern European legends.  The name is used
> >>for a creature that is created my a magician as a mindless servant.
> 
> >The "19th century creation" is Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.  Her
> >Frankenstein was an artificial human somehow brought to life from
> >dead body parts sewn together and imbued with chemicals and so
> >on.  The work is often considered the very first true science
> >fiction novel, because she was extrapolating from Voltaire's (I think)
> >discovery that dead tissue moves as if alive when electric current is
> >applied.
> 
> >The "Flesh Golem" in the AD&Dv1 rules is described just like that, and the
> >picture in the Monster Manual looks remarkably like the modern movie
> >Frankenstein appears.

"Frankenstein" was the name of the scientist; the creature was never named,
as far as I recall.  Shelley's creature was of course a one-off experiment, 
and as such did not need a generic name.  

The name "golem" does indeed come from an Eastern European/Jewish myth.
The original "golem" was made from clay, and animated by writing "golem"
(in Hebrew) on the clay, I believe.

The three golems in AD&D (flesh, clay and iron) are of course three
completely separate mythical creatures which Gygax grouped together because
they are all human-made, human-shaped and not really intelligent.  
(The iron golem comes from Greek myth, as in "Jason and the Argonauts".)

As for a generic name: I can't see why you need one; a single creature can
simply be called "Fred" and more than one creature of this sort would destroy
the idea IMHO.

--
Jonathan Egre' = jonathan@mantis.co.uk = jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk
Word for the day: "peritoneum".  Include it in all your conversations today!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk (was: SR: SRII combat mods)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:07:28 GMT

gt9405b@prism.gatech.EDU (Lord Goodgulf the Ma-a-a-agical Wizard) writes:

     
>    The rigger is not in charge of combat tactics.  I would never give the
>decker the gun if I thought he was incapable of handling it.  The rigger should
>trust the street sam's judgement enough to accept, "The decker will not be
>shooting at us."  Now if he's never been in a combat situation before (the
>decker), then it's a lot harder to predict how that character will react.  But
>then, I wouldn't want to take somebody new on a run regardless of what armament
>he has.  It's far too easy to freak out and blow everything even if you're
>unarmed.

Well, if you think about it, Riggers actually make better combat leaders
than Samurai. They are in the rear and are getting data fed to them from
everyone. The Sammi is a great trigger puller, but when it comes to
sorting out what's going on, he will normally be pretty damn busy
shooting. Let the guy in back figure out combat tactics. It's much
more likely that the Merc or Former Military Officer should be the
combat leader for your group. For all their vaunted prowess, most
Samurai are just gunslingers. They don't have any more knowledge
of tactics than that slowpoke Decker does.

If your character didn't buy Leadership/ Military / Tactics, then
I'd have to say he doesn't know his head from a big old hole in
the ground about combat tactics. If you want to fight him like he
does, you are using your knowledge and not the characters. I paid
for Tactics when I developed my character 'cause I know I'll be
using my small knowledge of military tactics to fight my character.

Axly



Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:41:33 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
	<1992Jul25.002200.1503@news.columbia.edu>

Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??

WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?


This argument is getting increasingly silly.

-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: pfrazie@andy.bgsu.edu (paul frazier)
Subject: Re: Fantasy Genre...
Organization: Bowling Green State Univ.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:19:04 GMT



There are a variety of reasons why I like one particular game system over
another.  Familiarity is, of course, the strongest reason.  If I know how
to do something in one system without having to stop the game to look up 
a rule or procedure, I'm likely to stick with that system.

However, if another, unfamiliar, system has a more streamlined way of
doing things, I might switch.  For example, I dislike Shadowrun because
of the way players need to roll a handful of die and count each die
as a seperate check to determine sucess or failure.  Other games have
used a single die (or set of dice) to generate a single value to 
determine success for a long time.  SR seems to have added a needless 
complication (IMHO) to something that was working fine in the first 
place.  

Something I also prize highly in a system is when it is *not* written 
as an intimate part of a campaign background.  I want to design my own 
universe, thank you, don't tie my hands by making the system and the 
universe inseperable.  For example, Runequest (I haven't played it since
Chaosium dumped it, so these comments may be out of date) had a fixed
set of religions, each carefully designed, and they were specific to 
their universe.  In order for your character to advance, you had to 
become a devotee of one of their religions.  The option of designing 
your own world to play in was so daunting, I doubt if anyone ever did it.  

Lastly, if the rule book is sufficiently interesting/amusing, I may play 
it once or twice just to try it out.
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Best Super system
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:19:02 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about GURPS combat that
there is... that a high defense character can't be hit.  This is purely
false.  You may have an astounding Dodge, say (in a Supers game), but if
someone who happens to be more skilled comes up to you and uses the
most wonderful of combat maneuvers, the FEINT, you can find your dodge
slipping away as you are faked out horribly....

Now, I've never played GURPS supers, but as a GM, if I want to design
a foe who can hit someone with a 14 defense, then it isn't that hard... and
I *DON'T* have to rely on scoring criticals to hit.  Anyone who reads the
rules can do the same.

-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: warmongr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Krishgan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SR: T2?
Summary: -I do know of a few ideas...
Keywords: Shadowrun, SR, SRUN, SHADOWRUN
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:54:55 GMT
Organization: the Nevermore Foundation


->>[Hey Axly,  I know the folks at Nemesis Conglomerate and Kronos Defense
  Industries are kicking around Robotics and Cybermechanization.  If you are
  interested in these theories, give me an email drop at either of the
  following addresses....

		      holmes@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
		      warmongr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

  Meet me in the Matrix and we'll talk....share wares, jokes, stories,
  comedies....what have ya...]<<
    -Backdraft (working since Reflex Inc. is out beating up on a Hydra and
	    getting their butts kicked by the Aztlan Response team at the
	    same time)
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:07:39 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes:

> Um, hard science fiction means, as far as I can tell, based on actual
> science. Ie- no faster than light, nothing that is based on uninvented
> science.

Hmmm, I thought it meant consistent science that doesn't contradict existing
scientific knowledge.  I feel it should also include the
social/political/economic effects of science and technology (ie.  "Powercells"
for "blaster pistols" could also be used in many other types of equipment).

For example, you can add an FTL drive based on some effect that occurs during
higher energy level particle interactions than has been observed so far,
providing it doesn't contradict any existing evidence.  If this FTL concept is
then implemented in a reasonable fashion and the story/game includes
appropriate social, eeconomic and political effects (corporations collapse,
others form, old ships become obsolete...), then the result is "hard SF".

> When you start adding things in a game simply because it's 'cool', especially
> if you're willing to bend reality for fun, you squish and mash science
> fiction into... soft sci fi.
> 
> Which isn't bad, simply different.

I agree.  There are different personal preferences and different moods...and
happily, there is a wide range of SF (or Sci-Fi) rpg's to suit many of these
situations.  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Fantasy Genre...
Date: 23 Jul 1992 23:23:44 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <dlaird.0us4@terapin.com> dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird) writes:
>What makes a consumer choose one system over the other?  I used to play various
>fantasy genre games, then switched to superhero's (in-between where to many
>systems and games to list)....Finally, I decided to write my own system.
>
>
>Based on your personal preference (not what you think other's might think), why
>do you play a particular game?...Is it the system (ie. familiarity)?...The
>world in which the game takes place?...The ease/hardness of play?...Spell
>usage?...Combat?...Monsters/Demons/et all?

  I've played Ars Magica nearly exclusively for the past 2 years. I've got
3 main reasons for liking it.
1) It's got the best magic system I've seen. It makes specialization and
spell invention relatively easy for the players.
2) It's set in Europe, so we're already in a rich environment for 
roleplaying. There's plenty going on around that's not necissarily concerned
with the campaign.
3) I like the troupe style of roleplaying. With multiple GMs you get a
range of story types you don't find in other genres.

  I also enjoyed Lace and Steel almost entirely for it's setting. My
sorceress got to save the prince. Ungrateful wretch.





-- 
Mike Swaim            | "What izzis wunnderful thing? S' Beautiful
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | I think I'll put my tongue on it." -Arthur
Rupp doesn't even know who I am,
 much less care what I think
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: goodwin@orionsci.uucp (Ben Goodwin)
Subject: Dark Conspiracy Question
Organization: Orion Scientific, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:36:46 GMT

I have a question on Dark Conspiracy rules.

I have a character, combat oriented of course, who has a small arms
skill of 7.  There's another character who's basically a psycher.
She has a skill of 3.

When we fire single shot I've got a 140% chance of hitting at short, 70% at
medium etc... She's got a 60% chance at short range, 30% at medium
etc...

I use a StomrCloud which has a 5 ROF.  She uses a Tommy gun which has
a ROF 5.  When we fire burst modes (bursts of 5) she rolls 5d6 and I
roll 5d6.  

My superior skill means nuts in this instance.  Is this a mistake in 
the rules or is my DM misreading something?

Even in burst fire my chance of hitting should be greater, strength not
withstanding.

Reply by E-mail and post if you want.  Thanks

Quick synopsys:

We've found a portal that leds into a human facility.  I took one of
those satellite location beacons, dressed up like the bad guys (killed
two and got their armor :) and walked through the portal.  Unfortunately
the beacon didn't work so I snatched the most important looking guy we
could find in 5 minutes.  Our Psycher rolled stage 6 successes, taking
control of the guy and we walked back through the portal.  The GM just
told us "Congratulations, the enemy is sure to take notice of you and
to also take subsequent action immediately."  There'll be a hot time in
the old town tonight.  We've played 12 4 hour sessions and don't know
what the hell is going on still.  Talk about a dark conspiracy.  Well,
atleast they'll be coming to us for a change!
-- 

-Ben
From: psikh01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Volkmar Kuhnle)
Subject: Re: Point or Random Systems, What about both?
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 09:27:35 GMT

Just a littel warning about systems in which the whole character is created
by distributing points (e.g. RQ III): In my experience, these systems
favor 'pathological' characters (e.g. Fighters with maximum DEX and STR but
minimum INT and willpower). I am roleplaying for about 7 years now, and
played with lots of systems (most of them 'home-made'). IN almost all
'point dist. systems', such pathological characters sprang up.

Therefore I suggest the following:
	Set all stats in the same range (e.g. 3-18, 3d6). Let your player roll
	the appropriate dice as often as you have stats (e.g. for a system with
	8 stats, make them generate 8 rolls) and then let them distribute
	the numbers freely along the stats. This method is used e.g. in 
	Rolemaster.
	Another possibility: Let the players roll three complete sets of stats
	and then select the set they prefer most.

Skills: in contrary to stats, for skills a point distribution system works
fine (IMHO). It works best when the skills are somehow related to the stats.
This could be done e.g. in the form of bonuses (e.g. ROlemaster). Or the
number of skill points you have is derived from some of the stats (e.g. Call
of Cthulhu).

Just my $ 0.02,

*V.K.* 

Volkmar Kuhnle  
psikh01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de | all constructive comments etc. welcome 
kuhnle@ait.physik.uni-tuebingen.de  | But: Send your flames to /dev/null
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Champions--Mental Flashes
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:33:08 GMT
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 24 Jul 92 19:25:59 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 ]

>>>>> On 24 Jul 92 19:25:59 GMT, bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E
>>>>> Gibbs) said:

CEG> To the extent that the mentalists in my campaign are starting to get
CEG> cocky, I was thinking about using Flash vs.mental senses, but there
CEG> isn't much on ECV flashes.  Has anyone tried this in their campaign?
CEG> Let me know.

This got hashed out a while back. Mental Powers require a targeting sense
to "target" someone. For humans this is normally sight, though any
targeting sense is useable. Flash their sight, and the mentalist can't
target anyone, unless they have Mind Scan.

Mind Scan is part of the Mental sense group, along with Mental Awareness.
Flash vs. Mental sense group is mechanically feasable. (Want something
funky? Flash vs. Touch. Think about it). Add Based on ECV and Invisible to
all but Mental Senses and you've got a "Mental Flash" that works like most
other Mental Powers. Mental Defense would not apply; only Flash Defense for
the Mental sense group.

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!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: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS: Alien races -- Too powerful?
Keywords: GURPS Aliens Space
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:41:58 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

In article <1992Jul29.024035.18924@rchland.ibm.com> BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
|On "point breaks" for non-humans in GURPS Fantasy and GURPS Aliens.
|
|SO WHAT!   (Pet Peeve warning!!)
|
|If there is going to be any meaningful difference between races some are
|going to probably be better than others at certain things.  If all your
|elves are are humans with pointy ears who live in the woods, why bother?
|
	If there's going to be any meaningful reason to use a point system,
everyone has to pay the same price for the same thing.  If you're going to
give nonhumans a point break, or make them pay more, then telling your
players to make "100 point characters" is meaningless.

|Now in GURPS (and I assume other point games) it will be "cheaper" to make
|a strong, tough, (stereotypical) dwarven fighter than an equivalent human
|fighter.  Now, if the only reason a player wants to be the dwarf is 
|'cause it's cheaper, that's her problem.  She's a lousy roleplayer.  Dump
|her and get some real players who want to play a dwarf 'cause they fell
|in love with the little buggers while reading Lord of the Rings (or 
|whatever) and want to be a DWARF, not a short little human tough guy.
|
	Writing different numbers down on paper will not change how a character
is played.  It is just as easy to take one of the horrendous GURPS
Aliens/Fantasy Folk races and play it exactly like a human, as it would be
if their point costs were balanced.

	By all means, require whatever attributes or advantages you think are
appropriate for a given race.  Just make them pay for it like everyone else.

dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's a very healthy attitude...it just sounds strange coming from you."
					-Corky Sherwood-Forrest
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:33:54 GMT

ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (E. Chris Garrison) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.185143.23188@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> cassidy@cps.msu.edu.cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
>>>Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And DONT
>>>give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail monster
>>>after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
>>>						Chris
>>
>>	The 19th century creation that I think you are refering to is
>>"Gollum" by Tolkien.  However, I beleive that there is a legendary
>>creature called a "golem" in Eastern European legends.  The name is used
>>for a creature that is created my a magician as a mindless servant.
>>
>>As always: I could be wrong.

>Hate to say it, but you are.

>The "19th century creation" is Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.  Her
>Frankenstein was an artificial human somehow brought to life from
>dead body parts sewn together and imbued with chemicals and so
>on.  The work is often considered the very first true science
>fiction novel, because she was extrapolating from Voltaire's (I think)
>discovery that dead tissue moves as if alive when electric current is
>applied.

>The "Flesh Golem" in the AD&Dv1 rules is described just like that, and the
>picture in the Monster Manual looks remarkably like the modern movie
>Frankenstein appears.

>As far as I know, your bit about the legend is correct, but "Gollum"
>from J.R.R. Tolkien has nothing to do with it, he was just a wizened,
>Ring-warped old Hobbit-kin.

...and he was a 20th (not 19th) century fictional creation....
Drin
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Throw away your greatsword! ( Big vs. Small Weapons )
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:12:19 GMT

akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes:


>James- come to America, go to any gaming con.  Wait for the SCA demo.
>At some point, they will go into the "Why greatswords can be used in
>corridors" speech.  I remember one demo where they had a guy with a
>greatsword fight a guy with broadsword and shield in a narrow stairway.
>The intention was to demonstrate how the broadsword guy had problems
>swinging his weapon (it kept hitting the walls); the greatsword guy
>didn't have any problems.  Unfortunatly, he still lost.


Bit of a quibble here, that a stairway isn't the same as a corridor. Most
stairways have a bit more head clearance than the normal hallway or 
orc warren. Also, the big problem the broadsword wielder has is that his
weapon is a slashing weapon, and his sword arm faces toward a wall, so
his slashes are limited. A broadsword fighter fighting down would have
a much easier time. Our stairways reflect the way that stairs were 
constructed in medieval times, and they were constructed this way for
this very reason: It gives the defender a big edge. 

One reason that you may want to restrict greatsword use in your campaigns
is that the 2 handed sword was a late period weapon used most commonly
by mercenary ground troops and the like. Knights were not the primary
wielders of this sort of toy. Remind your noble characters of that next 
time they reach for that commoners weapon. 

Axly