HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gray@visix.com (Gray Jones)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:47:23 GMT
Distribution: rec
Reply-To: gray@visix.com (Gray Jones)
Organization: Visix Software, Reston, Virginia

In article <1992Sep29.145703.9069@news.columbia.edu>, jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
|> 	The problem is that it scales badly with higher HT, so that there 
|> is a fairly sharp break around 14HT: above that and characters usually have 
|> to be beaten down to -5xHT to kill them. I do not think this was the intent 
|> of the rules fix, and I do not consider this neccessary to promote general 
|> lesser lethality. 

So use the Mental Disadvantage rule:

Any roll over 14 fails, no matter what your health is.

--gray

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: CX6L <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:14:10 GMT

In article <2ACE1A80.23198@ics.uci.edu> mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:
>While we're on the subject of modeling reality (particularly weapon
>damage), does anyone know any good sources on _real_ trauma caused
>by bullets, knives, baseball bats, etc.

Check out the Journal of Trauma: it has been around for years,
and was still around, last time I looked. It was inspirational
for a co-GM and myself in formulating head-wound rules. Any
good university medical library should have it: I've seen it at
two different ones. Hope that helps!

______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 01:20:17 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <1992Oct2.184457.8420@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>	Now, in a GURPS firefight the rules might well make it benifitial
>to always aim for the vital spots.  If so I think they should be changed
>or the specific game you are running should have lower average skills 
>(probably the latter, most GURPS games I've seen tend to have extremely
>high combat skills, especially guns).

Actually, the recently released 2nd edition of GURPS High Tech now has
rules for 'shooting under fire'.  One that sticks out in my cursory
reading (I tend to 'skim, then re-read carefully'), is the new rule
about needing to make a will roll to be able to return fire (with
modifiers for the intensity of the fire comming at you; -1 for
occasional sniping, -5 if somebody's out there with a M60 hosing down
the bushes you're using for cover).

It also appears that the entire 'gun damage' rules have been
re-written to make things more clear; there are copious examples of
deforming/solid/armor-piercing rounds used against armored and
unarmored targets to various hit locations.  Again, I need to go back
and digest this information, but the numbers look reasonable.

>Dave Bonar
>eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
From: cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:45:00 GMT
Organization: The PowerDrome BBS [(716)825-3614 Excelsior]
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! v0.960

Well, after all of the talk about TORG I think I will dig it out of storage in 
the attic and see if I can't figure out my own background to use with the 
systems.
 
Skeksis
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:2623 rec.games.frp:25211
From: jek5313@zeus.tamu.edu (You _know_ you want to. . .)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: shadowrun and Death.
Keywords: Shadowrun, hit points,
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:30:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.3OCT199200300531
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep30.030321.18283@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, brehob@plantain.cps.msu.edu (Mark W Brehob) writes...
>I have only played SR on and off.  I don't know if this is covered in 2nd  
>edition rules, but the game system seems to be bad when it comes to dieing
>(Yes the whole 1st edition combat had problems...)  It looks like a mage,  
>with a treat deadly can save any char. after any hit.  One could get torn  
>apart by a heavy MG and still be treatable.  Am I missing something or is  
>this a game design flaw?
>Brehob

	Well, it's not really mentioned, but use a little of your own initiative 
here, bucko.  You get blown apart (take a deadly +) from a mine, say.  You 
suddenly don't have any question about the part of the damage indicator where it 
says "unconscious or dead."  If "parts is parts" then you don't just reassemble. 
 This ain't Lego, here.  He's dead, Jim.  
	However, if you want to make use of the same rule as the critterss with 
regeneration do (i.e. avoid gratuitous resurrection) then you can use the "rule
of one" for regenerating creatures.  This means, simply, that you roll a d6
after the character takes a head wound, then if you roll a 1, the head and the 
body don't talk much anymore.  In Ramirez put it in _Highlander_; "if your head 
leaves your neck, it's over."  
	Another thought, though.  If you're having too many characters dying, 
you probably have one of two problems:
	1)  Stop killing them off!!!!   DM is the problem, or;
	2)  The players are idiots (you do NOT, under any circumstances, hug a 
            Lampton Lizard, no matter HOW cute he looks)!


				So Nyah!!


						Loki-almost-godlike-GM.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: Re: Supplements for Multiple Systems
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:52:50 GMT

In article <6785@transfer.stratus.com> hgarcia@sw.stratus.com (Henry Garcia) writes:

>   A straight stat converter, I agree, would probably not be all that difficult
>   but where the loss might come in is if you are converting from one game system
>   to another and the 'target' game system does not handle something that the 
>   'source' game system does.  For example converting a character from some game
>   system that has a detailed, developed, psionic system to an AD&D1 game system
>   where psionics are nearly non existant. Unless you re-wrote the AD&D1 system

I think Henry's hit it right on the nose.

Our latest book, Pawns: The Opening Move, is essentially a
high-powered bestiary.  In there the experts list was able to come up
with some pretty solid conversion information on combat oriented
things, like (using AD&D terms) stats, attacks/round, hit dice, saving
throws, skill at fighting, and so forth.

But when it came to magic and psionics, we just said heck with it and
put down how good they were (on a scale we came up with) in magic or
psionics and left it up to the GMs to figure out what that meant.

Of course now that they have stats nailed down, the next time we do
a project like that the group might decide to try and nail that down a
little closer--who knows.

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
				  mavra@wizards.com

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:30:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner) writes:

> Similarly the suddeny inclusion of comments like "Golden Arches" or "Beam
> me up Scotty" or "I'd walk a mile..." tend to be more humerous in my games
> so I think that having the referee continually monitoring for things like
> that is getting a bit too extreme.

Different styles I suppose.  Some gamers like to be players handling
characters; other gamers like to forget that they are players for a while,
and experience the game world through their characters.

There's enough humour within the campaign setting, without having to go
outside of it.  I find that the _characters'_ humour tends to be of much
higher quality than the out-of-context humour from the players.

I'm not suggesting a fanatical devotion to remaining in character.  However,
it is all too easy for a quip to ruin the atmosphere of a setting.  such
atmospheres are slow to develop, and dissipate instantly.  Looking back on
game sessions, the enjoyable sessions seemed to be the ones where there was
little time lost to out-of-context talking.  When a session had lots of time
spent on such talk, I usually thought, "Well, next time I'll have to try
harder to keep things moving smoothly, and focused on the game setting."

After all, we're there to enjoy the game.  We can--and do--discuss other
things and make jokes during rest breaks and other evenings.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gt7803b@prism.gatech.EDU (Raving Mad Lunatic)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sexist (?) Language in Rules (was Re: Q: Looking for "women's" rpg.)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:49:35 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <139330002@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> r_ellison@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Ellison) writes:
>When initially reading the TORG rules I found the use of feminine pronouns
>as neuter to be terribly distracting; it was a strange construction to my

It's also incorrect English. "He" is ALWAYS the correct term when dealing
with someone/thing of unknow gender.
-- 
Child-molesting is an art, not a science...
From: lavonius@plootu.Helsinki.FI (Ville Lavonius)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:36:05 GMT
	<1992Sep22.202658.9839@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
	<JAMIE.92Sep23154802@kauri.vuw.ac.nz> <80616@ut-emx.uucp>
Organization: Cthulhoid Entities for a Better Tomorrow

In article <80616@ut-emx.uucp> dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:

   Someone held up TORG as an example of the new State of the Art?

   That was a joke, right?  TORG is a horrible game system.  The setting is 
   fairly neat, but again, if we're looking for State of the Art mechanics,
   TORG isn't very realistic, is rather restrictive and dictatorial, and 
   isn't actually all that playable.

What what what ?

A) Torg isn't meant to be 'realistic' at all, it's modeled after adventure
films and such. Tho' this is just the basic set, the worldbooks (especially
Orrorsh) put some sand in the PC's wheels.

B) Mechanically Torg is very very neat. With one roll you can't guesstimate
very wrong, learn the bonuses fast and the system is more scalable than any
mainstream system in existence (and it still uses one d20 roll).

C) The writing _is_ dense, and the artwork phenomenally bad, but certainly
that's a problem with many other games too.

D) The deck... finally something new and well-integrated too.

E) Subplots keep the players on their toes and force the GM to _really_
improvisate.

F) Playable... Players learn the rules in few minutes and all in all
the rules are a breeze (magic & miracles exempted, though they aren't
that hard to assimilate).

G) Good support, the only game that has a dedicated monthly magazine.
Players are listened to, and their creations published.

H) Dictatorial ? 
Who says that you've got to play in the Official Near Now. Most of the
sourcebooks have enough info that the GM could run a single world campaign.

I) The most beautiful die I've ever seen.

J) A friendly newsgroup to discuss the game in (the mailing list link seems
to be broken now).

   Dave

--
Ville Lavonius	        University of Helsinki, Dept. of Computer Science
lavonius@cc.helsinki.fi : "Some of my best friends are nukes" - R. Reagan
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:13:32 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

> This conversation has gotten off the track that it was previously on and
> I'd like to bring it back to where it was.
>
>         The argument:
>
>         A character with a 15 HT is too poweful.

Ummm, since your discussion is GURPS-specific, I'd appreciate it if you (or
anyone else replying) changed the subject line, to make it GURPS specific
(and thus killable/ignorable).  Perhaps: "GURPS vs reality simulation"?

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:14:44 GMT

In article <15972@mindlink.bc.ca> a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) writes:
>Huh? The chest and torso are one and the same. To be totally accurate, the
>chest is part of the torso. The torso includes the entire trunk of the
>body, from the base of the neck to the waist, excluding the arms.

Just to insert my measly opinion, I've always thought of the "chest" as being
the region covered by the rib cage, the "abdomen" being everything below that
(excluding legs, of course).  "Torso" is everything that's not part of the
head, arms, or legs.

...Paul
From: steveh@soda.berkeley.edu (Steve Huntsberry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: SR Damage
Date: 2 Oct 1992 05:55:39 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, Land of Chaos
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <BvEB4v.CI0@acsu.buffalo.edu> v121mhb5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.O.G. of S.A.R.P.A.) writes:
>In article <JALKANEN.92Sep30140242@lesti.hut.fi>, jalkanen@lesti.hut.fi (Janne P R Jalkanen) writes...
>> 
One could get torn  
apart by a heavy MG and still be treatable.  Am I missing something or is  
this a game design flaw?
Brehob
>> 
>>Yes, it is a game design flaw. Within the Shadowrun system it is impossible
>>to kill anyone with a single blow so that he will not be resurrected again.
>>This is quite unrealistic since you can take a direct hit from a ballistic
>>missile and still be healed by a mage, since all you got was a Deadly 
>>Wound. SR II partly covers this, because according to it's rules, you can
>>take damage 10 boxes + your Body attribute. Although, since the maximum
>>damage still possible with one blow is a Deadly Wound, you still cannot
>>be killed permanently w/ one blow. 
>> 
>>This is why a made overkill rules:
>> 
[deleted]
 
My Solution:

Allow wounding levels above deadly, continuing with the increasing scale.

I.e: light = 1 box, mod = 3, serious = 6, deadly = 10, K (for killed) = 15,
X = 21, Y = 28, Z = 36 ... this also allows you to kill those 15 body trolls.

That's what I would do ..

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Huntsberry	steveh@soda.berkeley.edu or steveh@ocf.berkeley.edu
<<< possibly witty quote goes here ... if you know a good one, send mail >>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: CX6L000 <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:59:11 GMT

In article <15934@mindlink.bc.ca> a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) writes:
>By the way, if the vitals aren't in the chest, where are they?
>
>If a projectile strikes bone, it will generally shatter everything around
>it, sending sharp pieces of your own skeletal structure throughout your
>chest cavity.
>
>I have no idea who wrote those combat rules, but they seem to need a lesson
>in projectile trauma themselves. Either that, or it's your interpretation
>that needs to be re-examined.
>
>J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca, (Vancouver, B.C., Canada)

Well, that rings true. Perhaps that's the real point.
I can see how a raking slash, or a punch, or even a
narrow rapier thrust could bite into the chest area
and miss all that is vital. I *cannot*, frankly, see
how a bullet (except *maybe* a high-velocity armour-
piercer) could possible hit the "Torso" target in
GURPS without hitting the "Vitals"! I think, perhaps,
that the "Vitals" results should apply to all hits
to the "Torso" by bullets and beams, and that the
"Vitals" should only be a special target at -3 to hit
IF the attack is Cutting, Crushing or a narrow, non-
fragmenting, non-meat-cooking Impaling attack.
This would ring truer to life. Maybe even nastier
results if the heart is actually aimed at (-3) with a
gun, ie: HT roll or die, kind of like the HT roll or
go unconscious when hit in the "Vitals" by a
crushing attack: no damage dependence, just a
chance of massive traumatic injury.

PS: read the Journal of Trauma for the lesson
    recommended above. Ych.

______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:02:30 GMT

In article <BvI9Ez.Bw0@visix.com> gray@visix.com (Gray Jones) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>|> 	The problem is that it scales badly with higher HT, so that there 
>|> is a fairly sharp break around 14HT: above that and characters usually 
>|> have to be beaten down to -5xHT to kill them. I do not think this was 
>|> the intent of the rules fix, and I do not consider this neccessary to 
>|> promote general lesser lethality. 
>
>So use the Mental Disadvantage rule:
>Any roll over 14 fails, no matter what your health is.

	Wow. A reasonable response. Thank you. 

	In the first GURPS game I was in, we used much more severe rules 
for conciousness: roll HT each turn at minus the amount of HT you are 
negative (so at -HT you automatically lose conciousness). We also used a 
cumulative -1 to dying rolls after the first. 
	This did not make things significantly more deadly for average 
people (who usually fell unconcious and died after one or two rolls), but 
it cut down alot on the 'superhuman' results of high HT. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | Alice: "But if I wasn't real, I shouldn't be
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | able to cry."  Tweedledum: "I hope you don't
Columbia University         | imagine those are *real* tears."
From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 22:24:26 EDZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

CX6L000 <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:

> >If a projectile strikes bone, it will generally shatter everything around
> >it, sending sharp pieces of your own skeletal structure throughout your
> >chest cavity.

Depends very much on the projectile. High powered rifle rounds do this
almost regularly, lower powered pistol rounds hmmm...

Pistol rounds are not designed to work against bones (this is true).
Hitting a bone WILL lessen chances of mortal wound and incapacitation.

A pistol round is going to have a permanent cavity of around 10mm
diameter - not that much. Yes, it's not nice, yes you get internal
bleeding, punctured lungs and such (that's why it does damage) but NO,
it's not vitals as in survival or instant incapacitation.

> Well, that rings true. Perhaps that's the real point.
> I can see how a raking slash, or a punch, or even a
> narrow rapier thrust could bite into the chest area
> and miss all that is vital. I *cannot*, frankly, see
> how a bullet (except *maybe* a high-velocity armour-
> piercer) could possible hit the "Torso" target in
> GURPS without hitting the "Vitals"! 


Unfortunately, you are wrong. A bullet that does not expand, can very
well miss everything important enough to put someone permanently down
(vitals). 

Why do you think hollow point and other controlled expansion rounds have
such a HUGE market?

Gun people have done a lot of work on this and results are clear (on
this thing at least) - bullet type matters a lot. The bullet MUST expand
RELIABLY to ensure high incapacitation chances (and lessen
overpenetration risks). Striking bone does not expand most bullets.

There are several cases and debates on "bullet placement", but it all
boils down to this - the chest is not just the chest. Several different
organs lie underneath and that's where it really counts.

--------
maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters
From: hgarcia@sw.stratus.com (Henry Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Supplements for Multiple Systems
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:03:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep23.094215.109@gems.vcu.edu>, porterg@gems.vcu.edu writes:
> 
> From:
> >If what is intended is to convert from game system 'A' to some intermediate
> >standard and from there to game system 'B' I would think that you would lose
> >something in the translation.
> 
> I think:
> There are a number of things that make me disagree with that.  The main one
> are game supplements like 3G^3 and Primal Order.  Each of these start with
> a "system", in this case a worldview or real-world numbers, convert it to
> an intermediate system, and then provide data to move that information to
> a particular gaming system.  *And*, with this comes the implicit ability
> to go from one game system to the common system, and back to some other
> system.  Granted, there may be something lost in the translation, but I'll
> wager that for the easier systems, you could type up a spreadsheet that
> would convert stats on the fly from one game to another.
> 
> The better the conversion, the less data lost in the translation...
> 
> Greg Porter
> BTRC


A straight stat converter, I agree, would probably not be all that difficult
but where the loss might come in is if you are converting from one game system
to another and the 'target' game system does not handle something that the 
'source' game system does.  For example converting a character from some game
system that has a detailed, developed, psionic system to an AD&D1 game system
where psionics are nearly non existant. Unless you re-wrote the AD&D1 system
you would probably end up severly depowering your character or changing his
nature to magic or something like that. But, as you say, the better the converter
is the less data loss.  And if it took into account the various deficiencies
of games it could probable handle things like this ok.  

Henry Garcia