HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leet@acsu.buffalo.edu (Brian D. Leet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: net.rpg: Character Stats
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:50:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.Bxu28F.Jrz
Organization: UB


  Having once expressed my views on character stats and then reading all 
these posts on form, fitness, instinct as a system I have to say "ugh".  I 
can understand the initial appeal and desire for a system that lets you
model a table the same way as a person (to alimited extent) but...
  First of all i do not consider a stat a stat if it is text, and booleans
are very very shaky ground as well.  Whats your race stat?  Your name stat?
Do you have a 1 or 0 for the limps with left leg stat? 
  To me character stats describe the physical, conscious and unconscious 
states of a character that are subjective and quantifiable.  Having just read
some recent research on mathematical modelling of human cognitive processes I 
would suggest that most of these important factors are indeed quantifiable.
  I would submit we need a stat system that does at least three things:
1> Easy to use and makes sense.  Pretty much a given.
2> Only offers so much as you need, some people like using few stats.
3> Integrates smoothly with the skills, powers and supernatural abilities of
   characters from all genres of games.
This means that generally stats should not have to do with such things as:
shape of body, attractiveness of character, presence or absence of some 
feature.  They should instead reflect what forces that entity can affect opun
their environment such as strength, understanding etc.
  I have developed a system which layers the stats into three levels with 
three at the highest level, 9 in the middle and 27 at the bottem.  Players 
could choose how detailed they wanted their system to be.  If anyone is 
interested I'll post it.  (Its cognitive section is similair to what Spike
mentioned in a recent post, good ideas btw, but we obviously worked from 
different sources).
  Just some thoughts from someone who is a bit skeptical about the FFII 
system.
							Brian
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats - solution to Build/racial factors?
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:40:16 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 15:48:38 GMT, (Spike) said:

	Spike> the other games? "Okay, the game has to define basic
	Spike> humans somehow. I know! We'll decide what things all
	Spike> people must have, and rate them on a scale."

	Spike> Is this the only way?

Maybe not. I have this vague idea of a character spesification where
you start with what a character knows and what he knows how to do.
Experience, in a way. Then you could if neccessary determine some
basic things like strength from that.

But I don't think the basic stats should be very important. In some
games (Twilight comes to mind), the stats are important when you
create a character, and then they just sit there.


When I think about other people, I don't think of them in term of
standard 'stats' - I think of them in term of what they can do, what
they are good at, what they have done. Would it be possible to base a
role-playing game on that?

Any ideas?

-Magnus
From: edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:32:29 GMT


This one die plus, one die minus system is classic WRG ancients minaitures
system for combat resolution.  Except, there the result is added to a number
built up from a bunch of additive factors, for weapon type and tactical
situation, etc, and the final result is read off vs the number of troops in
the attacking unit to get the casualties. The number of casualties goes up
logrithmically with the increase in the factors+dice total.  I forget
just how many points represents a doubling of effect.

Their more recent system for fast playing games, De Bellis Antiquitatis,
has a basic mechanic of each stand being a unit, and two opposing units
each roll 1D6, add a factor for their type, possibly some modifiers for
tactical situation from a short list, and the higher total wins the round.
Winning the round has two levels of results based on whether or not you
doubled the opponent's total.  Doubling usually destroys the opponent,
just beating them usually only pushes them back.  This varies depending
on the types of units fighting, and whther the losing unit has room to
back up.  Some unit types have a high factor to add, but die if beaten
at all, some die this way only if faced by others that are especially
dangerous to them.

I guess the reason I got into this longish digression is that I think
these two models have something to say about how your choice between
a simple die added to skill level compares with rolling a plus die
and a minus die.

The big difference comes in the decision as to how you do unopposed vs
opposed situations.

An unopposed situation where you roll a plus die and a minus die will have
the same spread of results as an opposed situation in which each opponent
rolls only one die added to his skill. A fairly broad bell curve of results.
If only the attacker rolls and rolls a plus and minus die, then you have
the same situation.

If both attacker and defender roll plus and minus dice, then the probability
range on the results becomes a much tighter bell curve with wide very low
probability tails.

So do you want your combat results to hug the center more, with the 4 dice
rolled, two by attacker and two by defender, or spread more, with only two
dice rolled by whoever?

If you go with only two dice being rolled, then you can choose who rolls
them based on speed of resolution vs the psychological aspects of gameplay
in which only one person is rolling dice vs two.  It should be faster if
only one person rolls to resolve an action, since you don't have those
pauses waiting for the second guy to roll, and you don't deal with those
people who always wait for the other guy to roll first to see what he
has to beat.  On the other side, having the two opponents roll a die
each makes it more of a contest, and draws the attention of the defender
more closely to the roll.


Ed Allen
edandavi@well.sf.ca.us
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: admin
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:16:06 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <92322.161114RDT111@psuvm.psu.edu>, <RDT111@psuvm.psu.edu>
wrote:
> 
>      I'm going to try to get a group started to start putting down solid
> rules for a net.rpg.  I am looking for volunteers to join a commitee
> to write a net.rpg.  If you want to join it just mail me.  This rpg would
> probably be multi-genre,  we (the commitee) would make up the rules and
> periodicly post what we have acomplished to the net.  There might also
> be some discussion what rules we should make on the net.
>      Please send mail or post how you feel about this attempt.  If this
> turn out to be what I hope it does it will replace most of the net.rpg
> discussion currently on the net.

Sorry, Robert, but I am committed to completing the *real* net.rpg -
you know, the one being developed by the net?

Really, you're welcome to design any old game you want, but
don't invite people to help you cut Magnus' legs out from under
him and expect not to get flamed.
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:28:32 GMT
	<1992Nov21.211143.6985@news.columbia.edu>
	<edandavi.722410349@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.

edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport) writes:
>
>This one die plus, one die minus system is classic WRG ancients minaitures
>system for combat resolution.  

I didn't know this, but am not surprised someone else thought of it
earlier - it's pretty simple.

>The big difference comes in the decision as to how you do unopposed vs
>opposed situations.
>
>An unopposed situation where you roll a plus die and a minus die will have
>the same spread of results as an opposed situation in which each opponent
>rolls only one die added to his skill. A fairly broad bell curve of results.
>If only the attacker rolls and rolls a plus and minus die, then you have
>the same situation.

True.  I had thought that each side would roll two dice, but I see it
needs to be thought out more.

I don't think you can have each side roll a die unless they are of equal
ability, though.

>If both attacker and defender roll plus and minus dice, then the probability
>range on the results becomes a much tighter bell curve with wide very low
>probability tails.

Here's the math:

A relative to B:           A wins:        Tie:         B wins:
----------------           -------        ----         -------
A = B                       38%            24%           38%
A = B +(1 degree)           62%            13%           25%
A = B +(2 degrees)          75%            10%           15%
A = B +(3 degrees)          85%             7%            8%
A = B +(4 degrees)          93%             4%            3%
A = B +(5 degrees)          97%             2%            1%
A = B +(6 degrees)          99%            >1%           >1%

So if A is Good at fighting and B is only Mediocre (or whatever we
decide the range just below median should be called - two degrees less
than Good, anyway), then A will win 75% of the time and B only 15% of
the time, and they'll stand off that round 10% of the time.  Perhaps
this isn't the best result - you'd probably want a stand-off more often
than B winning, I admit.  Is this a serious problem?  Should we look at
ways of having them each roll one die, and simply modifying the die
roll with their degree of competance?

>So do you want your combat results to hug the center more, with the 4 dice
>rolled, two by attacker and two by defender, or spread more, with only two
>dice rolled by whoever?

I'd rather see the results hug the center more, but two dice vs. two dice
doesn't seem to do that - see above.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Net.rpg: Stats for guns?
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:39:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

This is pseudo-in reply to what Ketil talked about in the
"sep. skills & stats" thread.

Guns (vehicles, etc.) are easy to create mechanics for,
because they have traits which are more clearly rooted
in the concrete. What does "Rate of Fire" mean? Exactly
what it means. All you have to do is put it together in a 
reasonable fashion.

Living beings, OTOH, are a bitch. Beyond "height,
weight, hair color, eye color, penis length" etc., you
pretty much have to create form from abstraction. 
What, exactly does Psyche mean? See what I mean?

Spike

"I would shelter you, and keep you in light
 but I can only teach you
 night vision" - Suzanne Vega
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: cardplay
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:58:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.001556.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <-my19bq@rpi.edu>, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
>> One thing I think people may be missing though, is the ease of use factor.
>> As a GM, you're going to be controlling several people at once; it's going
>> to be a real mess maintaining that many different hands of cards at once.
>
>I was assuming that the GM would only have one hand of cards, though it
>should be larger if he has to deal with multiple characters, or perhaps
>the GM only plays one hand, and the numbers apply to *all* the GM
>characters. They all have good luck and bad luck at the same time. Nah,
>that wouldn't work. For one thing, my initiative idea wouldn't work, and
>I think that's one of the key issues to decide with cardplay. So maybe
>the GM should have the same hand size as the players, only add a half
>handful (round down?) of cards per GM character past the first one. If
>handsize is 5, then each character past one adds 2 to handsize. If
>handsize is 8, then each character past one adds 4 to handsize.

I still don't think that would work, and would still get very, very hard to
handle very quickly.  It also wouldn't be the least bit fair to the NPCs who
have to draw from a single pool; assuming that the number of cards a PC holds
is related to their abilities (skill, luck, whatnot), it should be similar for
NPCs as well.  And even if you just add a certain amount of cards to the GM's
hand, as you suggested, it still 1) won't be fair, and 2) will be a mess.
If you have a hand size of 5, and add two cards for every extra NPC, you're
talking about 15 cards for an NPC force of 6!  When you get into modern games,
particularly military action-type scenarios (even small ones), you'll easily
get a number of NPCs on the order of 10 or more quickly -- That's 23 cards or
more!  The whole card system is just too unwieldly for a GM to use efficiently,
so I think the GM needs to be able to fall back on some other device to resolve
such actions.  (Just Thought:  What about the fact that Jo Schmo the Guard
would have a huge advantage over the PCs just because the GM's hand was so
big, with more "good cards"?)

...Paul


-- 
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
            System One RPG designer.   But generally unknown.
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats contn'd
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:50:50

>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 92 23:58:50 GMT, magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad) said:

	M> Also remember than in such a hieriarchy, not all substats
	M> would have to be numeric, some could be boolean or text.

Hmm..don't know about this, boolean - well, but text?  How would you
go about using this in the game (i.e. generate other values from it,
tables that use this value, etc)?


--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
From: dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Subject: Re: Stars
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:06:34 GMT

In article <BxvEHu.BFA@cck.coventry.ac.uk> gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
>In article <Af23KT200WBNQ7MZkP@andrew.cmu.edu> William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>The best one I have seen (I asked a similar question here and on sci.space)
>is a map and catalogue that comes with the 2300AD RPG. It gives you a map
>of stars near and around Sol and the catalogue lists their types and locations.
>
>Hope this helps,
>-- 
>                  Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig
>*On a Flowery	     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk          Space Trip!*
>		 ---------------------------------
>        "Ahoy and avast, political analysts!" - Capt. Fishy

  The 2300AD maps are faked.  Several of the stars are renamed or ficticious.
Don't bother.

Dunkelzahn



-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
| Dunkelzahn the Greater Western Dragon | "Eternal vigilance is the price   |
| Dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu          |  of Freedom"                      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (I Need a Life)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Skills
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:15:33 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>Beside, no one would ever bother or be able to bring us to court.

Famous lasts words.... =)


-- 
Admiration, n.:
	Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves.
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: damage system for Steffan's SLUG
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:14:10 GMT

bshsiung@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Bernard Hsiung) writes:
>
>That said, I applaud Steffan's initiative to outline a freeform system and
>declare myself the second member of the net.rpg.freeform splinter forum.

Welcome!  Please feel free to propose any alterations, not just
additions.

>A simple damage system:

[Use of cards to represent wounds and fatigue deleted]

Very nice bookkeeping effect - I like it!  Simple and obvious to all what
it means, no paperwork!

>     Notice that when a character is Hurt (or Very Hurt) will depend on the
>character and is left to the GM to decide.  Superman will probably be less
>susceptible to injury than, say, a house cat.

This is still something we need to quantify somehow.  I'm thinking along
the lines of a contest of qualities, of course, since I want just one
mechanism.  So far, I've come up with:

The amount of damage is determined by a contest of qualities: for melee
attacks that successfully hit (as explained earlier, combat skill vs.
combat skill), the Attacker's Strength vs. the victim's Health (or
Constitution, or whatever you want to call it - this is freeform!).  Good
armor would add to the victim's health - say +1 for leather, +2 for chain
or scale, +3 for plate, +more for high tech stuff - while a weapon would
add to the attacker's strength - +1 for knives or martial arts skills, +2
for swords, axes, etc., +3 for polearms.

For things such as guns, each gun would be rated as a certain
Strength.  A small pistol would be Strength 4, maybe, while larger
pistols would strength 5, and so on.  (High tech weapons are my weak
point, and someone else would have to quantify this.)  This strength has
nothing to do with the user's strength - anyone can shoot a pistol, even
someone of Inferior (2) strength.

Each time a character takes half his health in hits, he gets one wound
card.  So someone of Average health (4) takes one wound card for every
2 points of damage done to him.  Lesser amounts of damage are shrugged
off as only a flesh wound.

Any comments on this?

>Bernie Hsiung (bshsiung@eecs.umich.edu)
>"In theory, theory and practice are the same."
> In practice, they aren't."

But the difference between theory and practice is purely theoretical.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Atributes, a different way
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:08:07 GMT

stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer) writes:
>
>Each stat (Strength, Agility, Mind, and Personality), have two
>substats for them: Passive, and Agressive (for lack of a better word).

A better word would be Active, rather than aggressive.

>So whadda ya think? I think that this system would work REALLY well with
>SLUG, but I also think it's be great for net.rpg. 

Since SLUG is freeform, anything the GM wants would really well with it
:-)  ...  It's pretty specialized, though - I'm not sure I want to take
the space to write it into.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Diff genres, diff skills?
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:39:14

>>>>> On 19 Nov 92 14:33:26 GMT, wayne@bragg.bio.purdue.edu (Wayne Twitchell) said:

	Spike>Personally, I'd like to see a large, comprehnsive skill list,

	Wayne> I like the idea of a large skill list butthis can
	Wayne> quickly become cumbersome and downright frustrating

I tend to agree, but perhaps layered skills could provide a solution
to this?  Refine (factorize, whatever) only the skills that are
crucial to your world, i.e. leave, say, Plant Lore alone in
Cyberpunk-settings, refine it into Herbalism, Agriculture, etc etc in
Medieval settings.

	Wayne> I guess that you should remember the saying about 'Be
	Wayne> careful what you which for, you migth get it'

Shouldn't that be: "Be careful what you witch for, you might get it
yourself"? :-)

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:25:32 GMT

cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
>Why do you insist on a bell curve?  A bell curve brings up one major problem:
>Modifiers.  Whether or not you have the bell curve built into the stats, or
>you have the bell curve in the dice convention, you still have the problem
>that at the ends, a +/-1 modifier means nothing, but means a lot more in
>the middle.

This is not a "major problem" to me, sorry.  Instead it is a vital
reflection of reality!  This has been discussed repeatedly on the net
with neither side being able to convince the other . . . there are
flat-rate people and bell-curve people, and that's all there is to it.

I *like* what a bell curve does at either end - that's what modifiers
*should* do, as far as I'm concerned.  A slight advantage (say, +1)
should be of more use to the average person than to the expert.  The
expert is already so good that a slight help doesn't help him that much
more.  The person with some exposure to a skill, but not expert, is
helped a lot by a small advantage, and the person who is utterly inept
at something isn't helped that much by a small advantage - he'd need a
*big* modifier to be helped, he's so bad.  That's what a bell curve
does; that's a good model of what I consider to be reality.

I'm firmly forever in the bell curve camp.
>
-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu