HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Damage Proposal
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<1992Dec15.012439.649@oz.plymouth.edu>
	<1992Dec15.034420.21465@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:33:19 GMT

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>
>>>Two people of equal skill with Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points 
>>>in a slugfest will be unable to hurt each other: their damage modifier 
>>>is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed combat), and they can never hit by 
>>>more than 4. 
>>
>>Hmm - *could* two such people damage each other?
>
>	Yes, they could, the same way even smaller and weaker creatures can 
>damage each other, such as munchkins, cats, rabbits, etc. 

I don't think so, John.  What we are talking about are two creatures very
weak *for their size.*  The average rabbit is not weak for its size, but
a Terrble Strength rabbit (or human or giant) is.  So a Terrible Strength
human could still hurt even a Superbly healthy rabbit, but I'm not sure
how easy it would be for him to hurt a human.

>I think the easiest way to see this 
>is to compare a fight between two tigers, two lynxes, and two tomcats. 

Right - no problem.  But this is different.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters)
Subject: Re: Virtual walking???
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:26:53 GMT

In article <BzEpL2.Auz@max.physics.sunysb.edu> mmoss@csws17.ic.sunysb.edu (Matthew D Moss) writes:
>
>Has anyone ideas on how to change this? A playfield is nice, but
>unless it's the actual size then it has limits. I've also thought
>a 360-degree treadmill would be good, but am not sure that it
>would be an easy engineering feat.

Not too bad, I'd think.  Grab a trunkload of "thumbelina" type mouses, and
make a platform of them.  Put some drag on the mouses so it's not like standing
on marbles.

Actually, only a small part (about a 2' x 2' square) would have to be active,
the rest could be dummies with action but no electronics.  Then, sense the
speed and direction of the walking pattern to generate the movement.

Of course, this would have to be very rugged for us non-skinny types B^).

Back when the Atari 2600 was king, there was a "joypad" upon which one could
stand, then by shifting your weight, generate the 8 positions of an atari
joystick.  Ms. Pac was very interesting with this.  Perhaps something like this
combined with a method of allowing the player to turn.  Not walking, the 
sensation is more like skiing.

-Coyt
(Though this thread probably ought to be on *.games.programmer, or one of the 
VR newsgroups.)


Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: apace@mta.ca
Subject: Re: net.rpg: wound.types
Reply-To: apace@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.001648@IASTATE.EDU>, cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU 
(Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

[Large examples and justifications for this system deleted]

>Note this system uses the wound state system along with the hit point
>system.  I think that the resulting system is well balanced and could
>be greatly superior to either a regular hit point system or a normal
>wound state system.  As I have not tested the system yet, I do not
>know how well it will work in actual game playing.
>
Note that Cyberpunk 2020 already uses such a system, where a fixed amount of 
"hit points" causes the wound level of the character to increase.

Another point - if the main problem of wound level systems is the amount
of bookkeeping involved, then how will this system help?

>--
Tony Pace
apace@mta.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Subject: Re: net.rpg - a damage system v1.1
Organization: Boeing
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:05:31 GMT

pace@mta.ca (Tony Pace) writes:
 >    I appreciate and am grateful for the large amount of work that you have
 > done on your damage system, but in the end I have only one comment.

Actually it was only a few hours.

 > No.

Suit yourself. No skin off my back.

-- 
 Bob Hall                   |  if [ -bs message ]; then
 Boeing Computer Services   |      mv message /compost/heap/$$
 root@chicken.ca.boeing.com |  fi
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Miracles
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:00:53 GMT

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb) writes:
>>Any feedback on the FUDGE Miracles system in FUDGE 12/12 Section F?
>>
>
>The basic ideas seem good for a free-form game.  I have one minor concern;
>'Levels' in part A (and in the rest of the description I've read)
>means poor/fair/etc, and have a particular mechanic for resolving
>skill rolls.  They seem to mean something different for Divine Favour,
>and have a differfent resolution mechanism (rerolling).  Isn't this an
>unneccessary complication?  Why not just use the normal resoltion
>mechanism?

Thanks for the feedback - the Miracles section was a first draft, and I
need to hear what folk think.

Levels:  good point, thanks.  Will change the terminology.

Rerolls:  I *really* like this mechanism, though.  First, FUDGE
Miracles is in the Addenda, so it can be ignored by anyone who doesn't
like it.  Second, it models my view of divine favor very well: God may
not respond to every plea, or He may respond in seemingly bizarre ways
that really do answer the prayer - though it may take a while to
recognize it.  And it might *seem* like He has or hasn't answered a
prayer (the first roll or two in your number of rolls), but this may
later turn out to have been an illusion.  This is represented by
"pushing your luck:" if you get a Good result, do you accept it or try
for a Great result?  How does God react to that?  The GM doesn't know,
but the dice do ...

Any other opinions on this?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Organization: Junior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Evolution
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:19:28 GMT

"Peter F. Delaney" <pd1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>A few times you've told people
>who disapproved of this simplicity that maybe "FUDGE isn't for them" -
>as I said before, you might instead want to tell them their individual
>mileage may vary.  Fleshing out FUDGE is a great way to build a system! 
>
>	So to sum up, FUDGE as it is could be run just like you said.  But it
>is also extremely useful as a design base for those who want a more
>complex system.

Very nice post, thanks!  I'll definitely modify the intro section to this
suggestion!

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: net.rpg:  mechanics
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:22:34 GMT

Just a small point.

We can't use dice because other RPG's use them.  Nor can we  use stats, 
skills, classes, or heck... even role-playing...

Woah.  Don't throw out cards because another RPG uses them.

And as it turns out, FUDGE is not using cards, except as a simple method of 
keeping track of wounds (in the free-form damage system).

How about a very simple table, written on every character sheet, along the 
lines of:

                     Difficulty (or other's attribute/skill/stat)
           1      2      3      4      5     6     7    8    9    10
       ---------------------------------------------------------------
Your   1:  13D   3H     6H     9H     13H   3S    6S   9S   13S   --
stat/  2:  10D   1H  [etc..]
skill
 
Where the value is the minimum card you need to play.  Cards would be 
ranked from 1C(lubs) up to King (13) S(pades).

Just an idea...  I personally don't like it, but maybe someone can see a 
good way?

---- Robert
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg - eliminating mundane magic
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:11:03 GMT

hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>
>How about this: "Mundane magic is weakened magic". If you use a spell
>over and over, it develops into an ordinary physical phenomenon and
>loses its special magical nature. Thus, each time you use a particular
>spell you have developed, it becomes weaker and harder to cast.

I'm not sure how you mean this: develops into an ordinary physical
phenomenon.  Do you mean everybody can shoot flame jets from their
fingers after a while?  If so, this obviously won't work.  If you mean
it simply gets harder to cast, though, that's a good effect.

>You could also have a property that says: "Shared magic is mundane magic."
>If a Wizard shares his particular secrets with another, then the magic
>becomes more mundane and is weakened.

True - and not just shared, but analyzed.  Thus, if you cast a spell in
front of another magician, he'll be impressed and start watching you
closely.  After another couple of castings, he might be able to analyze
the spell, thus making it "shared" even though the sharing was
involuntary.  There could easily be rules for this, such as making a
roll vs. IQ or Magic Lore or whatever, to figure out a spell.  The
first casting: no chance to figure it out.  The second that you
observe, a hefty penalty, the third, a slightly less hefty penalty, and
so on until about the eight time you've seen it is at straight IQ or
Magic Lore, maybe.

Another thing I've been mulling over is the infinite universe theory of
magic (mentioned in Bonewitts).  If there exists a universe in which
fireballs are possible, the magician is able to switch to that universe
- no one else notices the change, except perhaps another magician.  In
this new universe, everything else is identical, except that fireballs
can be magically created by those who know how.  Well, not *quite*
identical beyond that ability though . . .

What if switching to the fireball universe means some other possible
spell effect is lost?  You can't cast a spell to see through walls in
such a universe, perhaps.  So to cast such a spell, the magician has to
switch universes again.

I'm not sure where this could go, but it's an intriguing thought I share
in the hopes of sparking someone else to do something creative with it.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: naam@cecer.army.mil (Ramez Naam)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats.ideas
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:17:36 GMT

70750,443@cis.com (Spike) writes:

>Ah, I forgot to mention the other big problem I have 
>with binary trees: in order to have a wide base
>at the lower tiers, you need a lot of tiers. I prefer
>around 5 or six, *including* skills. At the 5-tier
>level, each "field" has 2^5 = 32 stats. With three
>fields (Mind, Body and Generic Third Thing (tm))
>that's less than 100 stats. (At this level, we should
>be looking at extremely specialized skills - 
>and there should be way more available for
>this level of detail.)

I think you're going to find that 16 stats is more
than enough.  Skills, on the other hand, we should
have well over 100 of.  I think, however, that if
you start with 1 root skill, you're going to find at
least 8 or 9 meaningful levels of skills, which gives
us plenty to choose from.  Also, as I said earlier, 
there's absolutely no reason why you can't trim a 
branch at a certain level, and use the value of the
nearest ancestor in the place of any skill.  For example:

		All skills
	A			B
A1		A2	B1		B2

You could play with skills A1, A2, and B.   When the
rules call on someone to use the B2 skill, they simply
use their generic B skill.  There's no reason that
every possible leaf-node down to level N has to be
filled in our skill tree.

--
Ramez Naam
naam@terra.cecer.army.mil
From: smash@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Scott Mash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: RPG Fanzine X-Mas Issue Ready
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:21:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smasher Land RPG BBS (614)593-8359


The DOUBLE X-MAS ISSUE of "Silver, Swords & Slaughter" is ready!

"Silver, Swords & Slaughter" is an amateur rpg zine that covers
nearly every rpg past and present.  All articles have been submitted
by readers, friends and net-folks.  The only charge for this small
zine is $1 which will cover the cost of the paper and stamp and will
only be distributed in the USA. (this is to keep the costs down).

Several changes have been made since issue 3.  The typeface and layout 
have both changed which has made SS&S 100% easier to read.  There is
also more artwork and a greater variety of articles.  In this months
issue there is a survey, which if filled out and returned, makes you
eligable to win a prize donated by a loyal reader.

This issue of SS&S has articles written by Peter Adkinson (creator of
The Primal Order, currently working with Wizards of the Coast), 
Nick Parenti (recently published in Dragon), Brandon Cope and many
others.....

There are articles on Amber, Fantasy Hero, Talislanta, AD&D, Gurps,
Creating your own RPG, and many many other articles....

I am making no money from this magazine all the money goes back into
the next issue of this zine.  "Silver, Swords & Slaughter" is done in
black and white on standard 8 1/2 paper.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at
sss@smashland.nelsonville.oh.us

Submissions are needed for the fifth issue.  The authors of the
articles that have been used will receive a free copy of SS&S.
Submissions can be emailed to the address above.

Silver, Swords & Slaughter
c/o Scott Mash
11685 SR 691
Nelsonville, Ohio  45764

-- 
| smash@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu         |  Scott A. Mash               |
| smash@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu         |  Smasher Land RPG BBS        |
| system@smashland.nelsonville.oh.us |  (614) 593-8359, 2400 Baud   |
|                                    |  RPG Textfiles And Utilities |
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: A NEW line of discussion
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:03:27 GMT

ee52fak@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>(Steve Spencer) writes:
>>	SKILLS: What skills does a child have that would be useful to him,
>>	and how do we acurately plot what skills he developes as he grows?
>
>	For very young children (as in my Alice in Wonderland game),
>they probably wouldn't have any save for Really Mediocre Math{
>Makes things very easy...
>	In fact, in cases like this, simple systems like Toon, TFOS,
>or Fudge work quite nicely, depending on the situation(s) involved.

	A simpler skill system is better - which deals with more general, 
intuitive sorts of skills rather than sophisticated knowledges. RQ skills, 
for example, seem more appropriate than GURPS. 

>
>	I would make progression EXTREMELY slow for children unless
>they are specifically TRAINING in a skill.  A kid who spends all day
>"sneaking around" won't necessarily get points in stealth, I think.
>Only very specific attempts to learn to get better should be
>considered "training" at I would only allow a few points to be
>placed in a skill if that child doesn't have a teacher or tutor
>helping her. 

	Eh? Children generally learn better than adults. There are alot of 
some basic skills which they often lack (logical thinking, coordination, 
etc.), but they adapt very quickly when neccessary. I think rather than 
focussing on what the player says the child is 'training', you should raise 
the skills which he is using and interested in. It may be difficult to TRAIN 
a child to operate some machine, but he will LEARN to play an equally 
difficult video game fairly quickly. 
	I think it is important to get out of one's head the image of 
children in modern-day schools. Children in other cultures and in other 
times have been brought into the world much more quickly - teenagers like 
Arthur or Joan have led armies, etc.  Our culture currently shields and 
prevents children from being useful members of society, but that was by 
no means always the case. 

>
>>	GENETICS: We need to see what growth patterns tha child will follow,
>>	as they mature throughout the game. How big will they get? And at 
>>	what rate? And how do we plot the time, so that they character grows
>>	up throughout play?
>
	This should take a bit of research, I think. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         | 
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: FUDGE Dice
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:32:02 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>Andy proposes using 2d10 and the following table:
>
>Roll:    <2  2-3  4-5  6-7  8-9  10-12  13-14  15-16  17-18  19-20  21+
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Levels:  -5   -4   -3   -2   -1     0     +1     +2     +3     +4   +5
>
...
>This is much gentler than 2d6, which (if you graph it) shows a much
>bigger jump in the middle of the graph.  2d6 also does not lend itself
>to modifying the die roll result, and modifying the level makes for a
>very bumpy progression.

	Note that on this dice table, modifying the die roll by +2 is very 
close to modifying the level by +1. It seems like you really want to allow 
smaller modifiers, and I suppose this is the way to do it: since this way, 
it is very easy to convert modifiers to levels (+2 mod -> +1 level). 

	OTOH, I see nothing wrong with a jump in the middle of the graph, so 
that people tend to do average. And while sometimes it is useful having 
smaller modifiers, it requires greater detail in the system. That is to say, 
it is easier to set a level modifier (which is just as coarsely grained as 
the attributes) than it is to set a 2d10 roll modifiers - because you have 
to be more exact. 

	I would still vote for the 2d6 and modify levels, allowing this as 
one of the increasingly expansive options. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         |
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: What will happen to the REAL net.rpg
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:00:15 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I personally like FUDGE (I like the game, too :-)  but there seems to be quite
a few people out there who were more interested in the original net.rpg.  If
these people are still interested in it, then _keep_it_alive_!  If no-one else
is posting about it, post your own ideas!  That's how SLUG/FUDGE got started,
one person posting an idea for a game and other people catching on. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I used to trust the media to tell me   |   I used to think that only America's
   the truth, to tell us the truth      |     way, our way was right
 But now I see the payoffs              |   But now the holy dollar rules

(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
                                        -Travis Works
                                        gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu

 
-- 
 

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:53:32 -0500 
From: "Peter F. Delaney" <pd1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FUDGE Damage Proposal
	<1992Dec11.184759.5171@news.columbia.edu>

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:

> I think this messes with the relative difference between the levels, 
> however. There is a *huge* (factor of 2) difference between Terrible and 
> Poor in this system, while there is only a 16% difference between Great 
> and Superb, for example.

I agree with you, actually.  I sent an email message to Steffan about
some of this (less math, though, us psychology types don't deal well
with these number thingies).  The purpose of the modified system was to
preserve the names of the levels while making Wound Resistance into
something useful - because as it stood at last revision (haven't yet
seen the 12/12 version) WR was not important except insofar as it
prevented total incapacitation for slightly longer.  But it does not
preserve the correct curvature around "average", which makes the system
deficient.

A linear system of "hit points" is better for this, IMO, and easier to
understand.  I don't actually like the modified WR system I suggested
very much, and in fact I discarded it while working on UNS as being too
complex and hard to intuitively balance.  One of the things that FUDGE
seems to want is a high degree of intuitive understanding - and this WR
system does *not* provide for that.

> Note, however, that this does not allow for beings of sub-Terrible 
> Wound Resistance.  You can say, for example, that for Terrible - 1, the
> being  takes two wounds for every hit.  Still, the level of detail here is
> very different than at high WR. 

True.  But it seems reasonable to expect that the scale will be set up
relative to the "main actors" in the campaign.  Detail is likely to be
pretty compressed when stomping ants and hacking up rabbits if you're
human.  Either they're unhurt, hurt, or dead (for rabbits) or unhurt or
dead (for ants).

> I assume by this you mean that armor subtracts a certain amount 
> from each hit - so each hit is reduced by two, for example? 

Sure, sounds like what I had in mind.  Of course, you get the same
problem as you noticed before.  My leather armor gives a bonus of +1
level, and *wow* I'm mondo if my score is terrible - my WR just
*doubled*!  While the same leather armor to someone who's pretty tough
means nothing, nil, niente, nada, rien...

> I would like to make a comment about this as compared to my 
> suggested 'Wounding-as-a-Contest-between-Damage-and
>-fixed-Wound-Resistance',  where you track wounds separately
> from WR, which remains constant.

Hmm, this sounds nicer.  I haven't read your system, unfortunately,
since I'm in the middle of finals right now.  But this sounds superior
and simpler.

.
Pe+eR Delaney, CMU, Pittburgh, PA ... Compuserve: 73750,3667
Internet: blackclove+@cmu.edu ...  Local: pd1x
"I do not question our existence, I only question our modern needs."
-Pearl Jam
Newsgroups: rec.games.design