HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: Re: GURPS Total Rewrite
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.162801.22852@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
>>
>>	If you let people have stuff on the cheap because it LOOKS useless, you
>>deserve to get your head handed to you when (not if) they find a use for it.
>
>	It depends how far you look, obviously. Yes, if someone is 
>inexperienced or otherwise unqualified, then they may set costs badly. 
>But then, if you assume inexperience on the part of the GM, the players 
>can abuse the point system and other rules anyway. 
>
>	My point is that ST is worth more in a Viking raids game than in 
>an Ultra-tech intrigue game. If you set the costs for ST based on its 
>maximum usefulness (Vikings), then it will cost a lot. If you use the same 
>costs for the Ultra-tech game, then no point-concious person will take high 
>ST. If some character-concious person does take high ST, then he will be 
>saddled with a less useful character. 
>	I submit that this is silly and unfair, and that it would be better 
>if a competant designer of the world-book or competant GM were to make an 
>optional alteration in the costs for this. This sort of alteration should 
>be suggested but not specified in the Basic Rules, and specified in some 
>worldbooks (like it is now). 

It would have to be a *very* optional rule, only for use if you're sure
that you're going to keep to one specific genera with those
characters... I mean, say you're running GURPS Illuminati University,
obviously IQ is the important stat, right? That and wealth... But what
if everyone takes a field-trip to Yrth? The high-IQ gadgeteer doesn't
have parts, but the football player can manage to look credibly
intimidating. Take a mage, and you've got someone who's good in normal
mana, but gee, pretty useless having all those points in magery when the
gadgeteer's teleportation booth drops you out in a no-mana spaceship...
And while IOU (Illuminati University) is really high on protection from
psi stuff like Telepathy, any other spot in the multiverse is very
likely to be a powerful psi's playground because it's so unprotected.... 

So if people start mucking around with the costs of skills &c before
GURPS IOU gets fully writtem, I'm gonna be *real* ticked.

But adding a side-bar that says, "Some things are more effective or less
effective in different settings. A GM who is sure that a campaign will
be staying in the same setting should feel free to alter the costs of
stats, advantages, and disadvantages so that they fit the genera
better." would be fine with me. But I don't think it needs more than a
sidebar, even and especially in worldbooks.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: v131p9t3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: marvel vs. Champions
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug21.063326.9362@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <1992Aug20.173009.1544@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	Well - yes and no. Iron Man's armor is clearly an "Only in Hero ID" 
>>limitation, ...
> 
>Here I think there _is_ a hole.  If the armor is Only In Hero ID, it's
>impossible for someone else to put on the armor and use it even once without
>ugly kludges like Usable By Others with the limitation "Not used by others very
>often, in fact no more often than people use someone else's focus".

It's not necessary to say "Only in Hero ID".  Iron Man's armor is a bunch of
powers bought with the OIF limitation.(Obvious Inacessable focus)  If someone
can disable Iron man they can indeed take the armor off him.  But they can't
actually use it unless you also add the "independent" limitation, which means
that the function of the focus is not dependent on the character.  Personally
I don't think the armor should be functional for anyone but Stark, but I guess
it's happenned before.

Iron Man's armor IS the hero ID, but giving it the only in hero id lim. just
doesn't work well enough.

James Shank           	#		v131p9t3@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
AKA: Ninstar Cybermage  #	or	shank@acsu.buffalo.edu
###############################################################################
"Ten thousand years old...He could be trouble." -Vampire Hunter D
"Every night I say a prayer, in the hope that there's a heaven..."-Styx
"How do you make ammends for a god's sins?"-Forgotten Realms
##############################################################################
Sneaky Types,Inc.:Clandestine operations for the common man.
	"Don't call us.  We'll just bill you when it's done."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: sprinters revisited (was Re: GURPS Total Rewrite)
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:17:39 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug12.233637.26360@news.unomaha.edu>, PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) writes:
> 
> From what I understand, running speed is a balance of power against mass,
> and long-distance running is a balance of energy required for power against
> endurance.
> 
> Power would seem to indicate ST, which is entirely neglected.  Long term
> endurance would seem to indicate HT, which is already there.  You are right,
> DX has noting to do with it.  Using HT directly in your running speed looks
> like a simple approach solution to figuring in the above dynamics.
> 
> Therefore, substitute ST for DX.  There is no mention of weight in the formula,
> but I think that this would be getting too detailed.  (Assume ST is already
> proportional to weight, perhaps?)
> So, does (ST + HT)/4 do it?  I'm no expert on running, but it does make more
> sense.  Also, it makes ST more worthwhile in the upper-tech games too, and
> DX a little less, which may be a good idea.  

	This would probably work, and Dodge would be 1/2 DX (round down).


Brandon Cope
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: cscott+@CS.CMU.EDU (Curtis Scott)
Subject: Re: Paranoia (GM being Unfair)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.135348.5051@orionsci>, goodwin@orionsci.uucp (Ben Goodwin) writes:
|> Hum, this is a hard one to put down in words but I'll try.
|> 
|> Background:  Our group consists of 7 people, and relations between one
|> or two of them is not what I would call good. :)
|> 
|> The person who is going to GM Amber does not like Jeff.  As a matter
|> of fact he's tried to wage a campaign of having Jeff removed from
|> the group, unsucessfully I might add.
|> 
|> The problem, Amber gives the GM a lot of latitude to screw players,
|> more so than dice games IMHO.
|> 
|> My question is sort of vague, but how can you detect this, and keep this
|> abuse under control?
|> 
|> It seems to me that if Jeff calls the GM out alot because he feels like
|> he is being treated unfairly, then he's gonna look like a whiner?  And
|> its also possible that when things go wrong for Jeff its just bad luck
|> or some such.  Questioning the GM alot is a no no IMO.  But seeing as
|> we're playing Amber soon, I could see some problems arising.
|> 
|> Any comments?
|> 
|> PS: This is not hypothetical and I am not Jeff.  But this could present
|> a serious problem to our group.
|> -- 
|> 
|> -Ben

There are three possibilities:

1)	Jeff is annoying the GM for essentially no good reason, and
	bad blood has developed over this. There's nothing you can do
	but put them in separate rooms for about a year, or advise
	Jeff not to play.

2)	The GM is annoyed at Jeff for essentially no good reason. Attempt
	to advise your GM of his obligation to fair play, and if he
	can't play fair, invite him to step down for a while.

3)	They're annoyed at one another for good reasons. Run like hell. :-)

I don't mean to be flip. But basically, I've found that peer pressure
works wonders. Players (and I mean those other than Jeff) know when a
GM isn't playing fair. If they express their dissatisfaction, the GM
will fall into line. Similarly, if Jeff is disrupting the game for his
own agenda, the other players are obligated to let him know the effect
he's having and the consequences of his actions.

If neither of them will budge, find another game.

Curtis
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 07:18:26 EDT
From: <34ZBTXQ@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: RE: Gurps Total Rewrite

 The great thing about GURPS to me has always been the consistency in the
character creation system. You could have your fantasy barbarian with an 18
ST and a cyberpunk street samurai with an 18 ST and it means the same thing!
Point costs are a useful way to compare characters (although how those points
are spent is just as, if not more, important), and I would therefore be very
much against anything like an official change in the point cost for buying
things. What GM's do on their own time is their own business, but I don't think
this needs to be in the rules. GURPS is just fine the way it is, IMHO.
                                                  Allen Shock
From: porterg@gems.vcu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: BTRC at GenCon
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:37:42 -0400
Organization: Medical College of Virginia


Just so everyone knows, the BTRC will be at GenCon, so if you like us, hate
us, or even play our games ;), stop by and chat so we have an opportunity
to part you from your hard-earned dollars*

Greg Porter
BTRC

*but provide reasonable value in return ;)

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: matoh@lysator.liu.se (Mats \hrman)
Subject: Re: SR: Holes wanted
Reply-To: matoh@sssab.se
Organization: 3S AB
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 08:06:11 GMT

chem7l@jane.uh.edu writes:
>In article <wilder.713337780@mik.uky.edu>, wilder@mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder) writes...
>>In <BsKG1o.HCx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>>>I like the method where
>>>armor subtracts its rating from the power of the attack. Otherwise, an
>>>armored jacket alone lets players shed most damage too easily.

>I dislike this system because I think it makes armor too powerful.  An armored
>vest (armor rating 5 if I remember correctly) can stage the damage from any 
>single handgun, SMG, or assault rifle round to nothing automatically and in all
>situations.  At least the old system allows for the _possibility_ of being hurt
>by a handgun.

You have to use the burst and autofire rules from the Riggers Black Book too,
of course. For example:

LMG, explosive ammo and enough bullets make 11D5.

Old armour rules and a rating 5 armour makes that automatically 11S5, to be 
staged down by body + dodge,

With this rule you have to try to stage down 6D5 instead. You'll find
that you run out of dice very soon. (Yes, you have to roll 20 sixes to
shrug that one off...

What the rules does is to make good armour slightly better, and "bad" armour
much worse, giving a wider spread in total.

--
     _
Mats Ohrman     Scandinavian System Support AB       E-mail:   matoh@sssab.se
                Box 535    _                      Telephone:  +46 13 11 16 60
                581 06 Linkoping, Sweden            Telefax:  +46 13 11 51 93
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:1759 rec.games.frp.dnd:2568
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: 10% XP bonus
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:26:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:

>In article <1992Aug6.103910.20661@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>>Yes, but it will not help you LEARN. The strong fighter has a natural
>>advantage, but the smart fighter should learn faster.

>Not true for physical stuff.  Are most pick up basketball games in your area
>dominated by, say, astronomers or computer scientists?  Our astronomy dept. is
>full of people who are of above average intellegence (if working on a science
>PhD is any representation of that - no flames, please).  We practice long and
>hard at both softball and basketball.  We enter all the intramural leagues we
>can.  We have not won a game of either in at least 15+ years.

>Now, by Klaus' reasoning, some of us should qualify for a 10% bonus on EXP for
>our intellegence.  We should earn lots of EXP for our practices and scrimmages.
>Multiply that by 10% for some of us.  Do we gain enough basketball levels to
>compete with frat rats whom we could stomp at say, chess or Squad Leader?  Not
>even close.  And I _know_ that we practice a lot more than the teams who beat
>us do.

Suppose this is a D&D game, and softball skill raises with level. Then you,
having played for 15+ years, should be able to beat a "frat rat" team that
had only been playing for 10, since 10 + 10% = 11 < 15.

Sometimes no amount of training will beat natural ability. To model that in
D&D, you would need a rule like "a character's level as a fighter can never
be higher than his/her DEX score." Good luck on getting players to accept
that.

Klaus O K
From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pomposity
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:19:34 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <3382@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>, hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
> 
> Due to the wonderful level of pomposity in this group, I offer the
> following rating system for your flaming convenience:
> 
>   Index                        Comments
>  -------  ------------------------------------------------------
>     1     Lacks any pomposity whatsoever; born to serve others;
>           a natural brown-noser/boot-licker; a walking door mat.
> 
>     2     Quite a humble fellow; ideal for any audience; quite
>           content with his lot; always follows the speed limit.
> 
>     3     Average; sensitive to flame messages; willing to
>           listen to reason; ready to ask opinions of others.
> 
>     4     Pompous; will argue with any disagreement; sulks if
>           proven incorrect; must outdo everybody; typical CS type.
> 
>     5     Pompous Ass; God's gift to the network; originated any
>           idea of any value; never wrong; history began with birth.
> 
>     6     Complete and total git; born to suffer others; doomed
>           to a life of total self-indulgence; napoleonic complex.
> 
> So, where do you fit in? :-)
> -- 
>  Bob Hall,                 | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
>  Workstation Peripheral    | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
>  Boeing Computer Services  |                                     -Groucho Marx
So where does Bob fit in?
Will he mind if people disagree with his classification?


I feel that I am more of:
     willing to listen to reason; ready to ask opinions of others.
     will argue with any disagreement and agreements; Always ready to question.

This doesn't fit into Bob's catergorisation, as do most people in the universe.
I take it that Bob classes himself as Mr Average or Mr Humble, and everyone 
else is pompous, a doormat, a git, etc. This action in itself may make Bob fall
into his own catergory #6.

I disagree with rating systems like the above, they are absolute in nature.
I prefer a list of characteristics which can be applied. Eg you may get a
doormat, git, with nepoleonic complex who is sensitive to flames

This coment doesn't fit in Bobs catergories as I am disagreeing with a
statement, while #4 is argueing with disagreements - two entirely different
things.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: tkogoma@triton.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: VOTE NOW!
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:49:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <14999@umd5.umd.edu> mvw@anywhere.umd.edu (Martin V. Walser) writes:
>   As the keeper of the FAQ, and general rgf.* heirachy answer person, Loren

Actually, Loren is longer 'Keeper of the Holy Answer documents'. ;-)

>Mart  (mvw@anywher.umd.edu)

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  tkogoma@triton.unm.edu
  I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                           what I have now...
From: jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: marvel
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:25:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.57301
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <5703@transfer.stratus.com> hgarcia@sw.stratus.com (Henry Garcia) writes:
>	As for character development, I don't think I follow you here.  Are you
>	looking for a system the dictates charecter development? (background, 
>	personality, etc..) I would think any system for this whould put 
>	constraints on a persons creativity in running his/her character.
>	Or am I completely missing the mark on character development 





Duh, I forgot to turn my bullshit filter on when writing about "character
development".  By "character development" I should have said "rational
experience system".  I've seen that Marvel does have something approximating
this, but it took them until the second edition to get it--just plain bad
design all around.
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chili Wars
Summary: Beer = rotted grain in water
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:23:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <14997@umd5.umd.edu> mvw@anywhere.umd.edu (Martin V. Walser) writes:
>In article <4741@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
>    I was going to stay out of this mindless food system war, but I MUST take 
>exception to that last statement.  You've OBVIOUSLY never partaken of a 
>quality homebrew

	Obvious, perhaps. Wrong, certainly. I've not only tried homebrew
(in 7 different forms) but american, german, etc., because people tried to
claim there was a difference. 

	There isn't. Aside from the lack or presence of bubbles, and the
bite or lack of the stronger alcohol contents, all alcoholic beverages past
1% taste precisely the same. Like the rotted organic matter that they are.

	Stick to real, nonharmful beverages. Or at least something with
pleasurable taste, even Kool-Aid. 


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Gurps Total Rewrite
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:46:49 GMT

<34ZBTXQ@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
> The great thing about GURPS to me has always been the consistency in the
>character creation system. 
...
>I would therefore be very much against anything like an official change in 
>the point cost for buying things. What GM's do on their own time is their 
>own business, but I don't think this needs to be in the rules. 

	There are already suggestions in many worldbooks for changes to 
point costs for specific advantages, disads, etc. The main book already 
recognizes that Literacy and Dyslexia have different point costs depending 
on the campaign. 
	All that I suggest is that the base rules have some suggestions 
about how to modify point costs to fit the campaign. I agree completely 
that there should not be any formulas or other official changes to point 
costs which vary with tech level, magic level, etc. - changes should be 
left to GM's and worldbooks. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Remember: a running man may slit a thousand
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | throats in a single night."
Columbia University         |                          - Klingon proverb
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with SUPERS?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:09:44 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Aug20.213528.7541@news.unomaha.edu> PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu writes:

> A few things don't make any sense to me.  Like unusual background.  In
> a supers game, why is this here?  The point is to be a super, not to
> see if you can encourage someone to play a normal with a large (50 to
> 250 points) point bribe.  If the cost of the powers are right in the
> first place, then why is this necessary?  It also leads to a cute 'ol
> paradox: I am playing a street supers game, where the players are the
> only supers of thier type.  250 pt characters, the rules recommend.
> Well, unusual background is 250 pts, leaving players with 0 pts.  So
> are you going to play 0 pt supers or 250 pt super-normals?  The real
> solution is simple: I, the GM, approve every character.  No matter if
> you can 'afford' it or not, you only play characters that fit in my
> world.  Simple.

My own error here, the unusual background cost is added to the intended
point base of the game, making, for example, IST superheros worth 650 
points apiece.  (GURPS Supers, page 5.)  However, I sorely disagree with
the author's contention that this is the best way to balance games.  First,
it says GURPS Supers isn't balanced.  Second, it's a wierd way to balance
the powers.  For example, why is the Unusual Background cost variable with
how common super-powers are?  This isn't a balance at all.  If it was, it
would be relative to something else (like the number of points of super-
powers) or a straight cost.  There is simply a limit to how valuable a
2d6 fireball is, no matter how rare it is.  It is not worth 262 points no
matter what, 262 points by itself is enough to build a *very* competent
normal (dare we say heroic) and a 2d6 crushing attack power just isn't a
comparison to that.  Unusual Background costs should be small, if they
are used at all.  25-50 pts tops.  And a flat cost too, not some scale
based on rarity.  However, really, if the powers were balanced in the 
first place, wouldn't all if this be unnecessary?  I feel it's a backward
way of approaching the problem.

-james