HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgrace@netcom.com (Joseph Grace)
Subject: Re: RPG's That Belong on Every Gamer's Shelf
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.173050.12689@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>I don't believe there are any specific titles that belong on every
>gamer's shelf - tastes vary too widely.

I don't think it's quite that simple, otherwise the same could be said
of novels (and other books) --- and we wouldn't bother naming
"classic" books.  I guess it's a matter of how much the RPG industry
has matured and how much time we have had to analyze RPG evolution "in
retrospect".  I think there's definite milestones and classics
already.  GURPS is great for muscling in (by a diminutive company no
less :-) to establish skill-based systems into the RPG mainstream.
(BTW, I am not saying GURPS invented skill-based systems --- just
that, in my opinion, SJG has made GURPS the first such game with
serious market penetration.)  Technically, TORG is a milestone --- with
the most uniform, elegant and powerful system and a variety of innovations,
e.g., drama cards and Infiniverse.  Whether *everyone* (:-) wants these
games for these reasons may be another story... :-)

So my current list:

1.  TORG: best all-around mechanics for cinematic (i.e., fun and
drama, not necessarily "realism") and systemic elegance.  Pioneering,
elegant and fun.  The system actually promotes multi-genre
role-playing!  My fave system!

2.  GURPS: state of the art point-based character creation and great
variety in supplements.  Good tactical man-to-man combat too.  Combines
role-playing with some realistic detail and option for tactical challenge.

3.  Paranoia: the great escape (even from role-playing games!) and
wild scientific loonacy.

4.  Talislanta:  the setting is great --- and much of the art is too!

5.  Cosmic Encounters (Hay it's kind of an RPG --- you play an alien!)
:-) :-)  Great for a beer and pretzels kind of evening --- good "RPG"q party
games.  Looney.

For supplements off the top of my head:

1.  TORG stuff (heh heh) for fun

2.  Robin Hood from ICE (?) for medieval setting

3.  HARN stuff for realism for scientific (ecological, geographical,
economic, etc.) realism

4.  RuneQuest Griffin Island.  I only have the revised 2nd (?)
edition and it's intriguing.  (I heard 1st ed. was even better.)  I liked
the large scale and examination of Orc culture (though I read it a long
time ago, but it was inspiring!).

5.  WarHammer "classic" scenarios.  These are even fun just to read.
Good horror, fun, and hero adventures all mixed into one.  Dripping
with atmosphere.

(Preparing to check out TPO!)  Good thread!

Cheers,

= Joe =
From: belcinski@slacvx.slac.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs. Random Generation
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:31:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: slacvx.1992Nov18.093100.1
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Detail (GURPS?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:46:47 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov17.215054.18487@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>>[I said]
>>>GURPS doesn't -- ignoring the rules does.
>gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris) writes:
>>	Steffan, you should read what you're replying to before being snide.

>I looked carefully, George.  Andrew claimed I could not make an
>interesting character that I enjoyed playing by following the GURPS
>rules.  Period.

While I admit my phrasing wasn't perfect, it should have been fairly clear
that the above was a context sensitive remark.  You were explaining how
GURPS made for an enjoyable game for you despite your ignoring point
balance (which I misread to mean point allocation overall), and I was
countering that this wasn't an example of GURPS point allocation doing so,
but actually ignoring the [point allocation] rules.

Besides, I didn't inhale.

>The rules I bend have to do with speeding up the playing
>pace, not the character creation.

Fair enough.  Seems like if you've you've got truly non-munchkin people,
you shouldn't need to worry about points accounting.

>To imply that *any* system isn't capable of creating interesting,
>enjoyable characters is frankly an unprovoked slam of the greatest
>magnitude I have yet seen on the net.

*My* turn!

No SYSTEM is capable of creating interesting, enjoyable characters.
People maybe, but rules systems, no.  (However, I do agree that every
system I've ever seen as allowed people to create interesting,
enjoyable characters.)

Nyahhh!!! :-)

   -Andrew "Stupendous Man" Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu



Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: gm1116@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: difficulty vs successes
Reply-To: gm1116@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 08:24:24 GMT

Excuse me for interupting,
IIIsn't the "difficulty" and "success" theory of rolliing
used inSHADOWRUN as well as VAMPIRE???  I remember something
vaguely about rolliing x d6 and addiing the succesess. 
So for those people who says that it doesn't work, your wrong.
It does work(personally I thiink its WAY too much dice rolling and
calculation, but thats personal taste not a mechanics flaw)

Badger
who probably misread the rules and will now be laughed off the net
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: mjohnson@force.decnet.lockheed.com (Mark E. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Bell vs. Linear
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Organization: Lockheed, USC, and UT-Austin
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:53:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.225238.7689@midway.uchicago.edu>,
fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche) wrote:
> 
> 'lo.  i was just wondering at people's opinions on bell curves
> vs. linear resolution.  In terms of rolling for a success at
> an action - regardless of the mechanic - or rather assuming you
> have to roll above x to succeed, which would you prefer?
> thanks.

Bell curves. But the trick here is "for a success at an action." For some
other die rolls in a game (i.e., damage) I prefer linear, simply because
it's more intuitive. The only bell curves I have familiarity with are 2d6
and 3d6. Even with the latter, however, I was surprised to find the chance
of success for a 6- roll was almost 10%. You see what I mean? I had no
trouble thinking of 10%, but 6- on 3d6 is not as clear in my mind. Who
knows? That could be good!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: bell@monet.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs. Random Generation
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:46:45 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov18.154752.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>RA is okay for making moderately
>complex characters quickly, but PA isn't. PA will always take more time,
>because it offers more choices, and if you require the players to
>account for points then PA gets even lengthier.

Is there any commercial system where you really just roll randomly to
create a character?  I don't think even the most fervent "random generation"
fan would like it if there was.  AD&D is the prototypical random generation
based system, and character generation can take quite a while:  rolling
stats, choosing race, choosing class, choosing weapon proficiencies,
choosing non-weapon proficiencies, choosing spells, and so on.  Aftermath
(random stats) characters take longer to create than GURPS characters.
It seems this is more dependent on the game system than on RA versus
PA.

Star Wars is pseudo point-based (at the very least, it's entirely choice),
yet character generation is very simple and usually pretty quick.

  -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:40:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.094658.23328@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>>Garion and Covenant both had serious magic items.  Garion also had a prophecy
>>behind him, the GURPs Rome equivalent of a 15 point destiny.
>
>(Yes I'm being picky, but for both of them their power had nothing to do 
>with the items - although this only became clear in the 2nd trilogy for Tom). 
>

Well, I'd interpret the case in Covenant as that the power of the white gold
had rubbed off on him.  But I see your point.

>>
>>Besides, if you want to allow great mages without high IQ, just lift the 
>>maximum on levels of magery.  Nice and easy, no fuss, no muss.
>
>(Again being picky, but this is also unbalanced as hell). 
>

You'd probably want to put costs on a curve, as for IQ.  It could become
balanced.


>
>	Stat explosion is unneccessary in any case. GURPS only has a few 
>of these unstated 'sub-stats': Fatigue, Will, Perception, Hit Points, and 
>Dodge. 

In a sense, every skill in GURPs is a sub-stat.  Thus, sub-stat explosion.
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:34:20 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov18.234110.14722@rchland.ibm.com> BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
[In response to what basis is there for GURPS' point costs] 
>It is consistant with a philosophy.  Things cost what Steve Jackson thought
>they should cost.  

That's no answer.  What philosophy did Steve Jackson use?

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: belcinski@slacvx.slac.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs. Random Generation
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:29:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.154752.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
> 
> So if you agree that both RA and PA can give acceptable characters, as I
> do, then the time factor may make a big difference. Also, RA is often
> easier to deal with for GMs, since it's quicker and requires less GM and
> table consultation for character generation.

  I don't believe that this statement is really testable.  The time that it
  takes to generate a character is far more dependent on the complexity of
  the character (that is, the number of attributes/skills and what-not that
  define the character's capabilities) than on the methodology used to 
  determine all the numbers.  You would need to compare two game systems with
  characters of the same complexity, and then make sure that there were two
  players who had exactly equal facility with said games in order to compare
  RG to PA.  

  Sure, you could superimpose a RG method onto a PA method (like GURPS does
  in its random character generation chapter), but this often takes tweaking
  and kludging to get a decent result.  It is not clear to me that the RG
  method actually saves any time, since one has to sit back and think about
  the resulting character (and alter it) rather than simply say "here are 7
  skills this character should have.  Each is at the 2 point level."  In one
  case, you're cross-indexing a die-roll on a table, picking off the skill,
  then rolling a level.  In the other, you cross-index on the standard point
  cost for skills table.  Appreciable time difference?  Maybe... maybe-not.

> But if you need "perfect" characters every time, then I agree that PA is
> your best shot.

  Huh?  I guess I must not have communicated clearly.  My point before was
  that PA and RG both impose limitations, and each leaves the player not
  quite satisfied with many parts of the character.  This is as it should
  be, since there would otherwise be no room for growth.  If I take this 
  statement to mean that the limits that the resulting character has fit with 
  the "concept," and said limits are of the player's choosing, this may be
  a more desirable result.  This is a matter of preference.   RG may force you 
  to take limits that are not of your own choosing... but what the heck.  
  This is realistic.  I sometimes roll my GURPS disads randomly.  Interpreting
  the results adds lots of "flavor."  I would agree, though, that if the player
  has a specific (especially if it is RARE) (dis)ability in mind, PA is the 
  best way to get it without rolling having to wait for a 4-sigma fluctuation
  in the dice-roll...   
 
> -- 
> whoah,
> +++++++++++++++++++++++23
> Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
> Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu

  Rich
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: barnett@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Glen Barnett)
Subject: Put the game in the Subject Line ! was (Re: Advantages)
Organization: The Australian Graduate School of Management
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:38:08 GMT

Will you Puhllllease put the game (this one "Re: Advantages" was GURPS)
ON THE SUBJECT LINE!

This is *really* starting to peeve me.

Glen
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: viktor@mks.com (Viktor Haag)
Subject: Over The Edge
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:58:06 GMT

I recently purchased Tweet's new game, Over The Edge, and am enthused
about portions of it, and not so keen on others (roughly the same
sorts of dilemma I have run into with Ars Magica and StoryTeller
games, funnily enough).

Has anyone out there started playing this game?  If so, what sort of
things have happened to your group?

Has anyone been using the game, but with a different background (this
is what I am most interested in)?

viktor

-- 
Viktor Haag					viktor@mks.com
Mortice Kern Systems				(519) 884-8469
35 King North, Waterloo, Ontario		ext. 41
"we are not thugs. we are vitamin supplements to justice ..." | a selector
From: mccall@Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Names
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:49:05 GMT
Reply-To: mccall@oswego.Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <16NOV92.12990851.0088@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.133144.23713@news.uit.no> dago@stud.cs.uit.no (Dag-Frode Olsen) writes:
>>A good name could make it more interesting to play.
>>(You can't name a npc minotaur king James or
>etc....
>>Dag-Frode Olsen
>
>Oh, I don't know! One of the finest Minotaur PCs I ever GM'd
>was named "Geoff". He was a cultured lad, wise in the ways of
>literature, mathematics, etc; truly, a murderer and a scholar!
>More seriously: sometimes it is refreshing to name nonhumans
>and cities and things in a more mundane manner, or even in an
>amusing one! Way back before I became a full-time GM, and I
>actually played in a lot of games, I got sooooo sick of Elves
>with Tolkien-like names no one could say, and dark lords with
>goofy names like Sardius, Sargon, Demonius....bleah, puke***
>Why *not* an Elf lord called Bob, or an evil demon named
>Skippy? Are *you* going to laugh at smeone that powerful?
>Anyway, Skippy is only funny to 20th century Earth folk:
>who says a fantasy warrior won't think it's pretty cool?
>
 Personally, I prefer my fantasy RPG to have fantasy-sounding names, and
 names like Bob, and Skippy are too mundane (I realize that this is by
 the standards of 20th Century folk, but that's who the GM is trying to
 create the illusion of a fantasy world for.) 
 
 The advantage of Tolkien-esque names is that they give the elf a non-
 human feeling instead of a human-in-a-funny-suit feeling, which is a
 danger in playing non-humans...why *would* an Elf lord have a 
 distinctly human sounding name, he/she is not a human.

 Part of this has to do with the players perspective : as a player I would
 have trouble maintaining the "suspension of disbelief" neccessayt to 
 keep the fantasy feel, if my GM introduce a major figure with the name
 "Bob","Skippy" or other various 20th century appellations. It has nothing
 to with the character except the fact that it draws the focus of the 
 game from the character's perspective(I see a Demon lord,elf lord etc.)
 to the player's perspective (Why did my GM name a demon "Skippy"?).

 This is all ,of course, IMHO. But I just find a fantasy game more 
 appealing if it has fantastic sounding names, your mileage may vary.

  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|D.Todd McCall                  \  The best laid plans of mice and men       |
|---mccall@oswego.oswego.edu    \                                            |
|                               \                                            |
|State University of New York   \  are worth about the same                  |
|                               \                                            |
|College at Oswego		\  in the final analysis       		     |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vampire System's Merit (NOT!)
Date: 24 Nov 92 04:54:12 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <By6Cz3.98I@acsu.buffalo.edu> v121mhb5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.O.G. of S.A.R.P.A.) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.165438@cs.man.ac.uk>, peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes..> 
>>As for taking a second edition to invent the index, proper contents and
>>meaningful chapter organisations...  Are these people idiots?  I am not
>>buying another book from them just because they made a mess of the
>>first one.  To me that's a reason *not* to buy again.

God forbid anyone should do a second edition of their game system.
Lesse, that rules out AD&D, Hero, GURPS, Runequest, and a host of
games from smaller companies.  Pass the Spawn of Fashan.

>>Ars Magica is so good and Vampire so bad because they are written by
>>different people (BTW).

>	Actually both systems were designed by Mark Rein*Hagen, though his
>co-writers on the two games are different.  

Hurm.  I'd love to know how much effort Rein*Hagen and Tweet, 
respectively, put into AM 1st edition.  AM certainly has smoother
mechanics, which (judging from OtE) is a Tweet strong point.
(Of course I know there are weaknesses in Vampire mechanics.  I
just don't think they make it unplayable.)

Bryant
From: news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:58:08 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Bxtsu8.9MH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:

Regarding my post....u

>Well, I'll differ with you on this. No one has a right to play
>any character who detracts from the general enjoyment of the
>game of any player, including the GM. If you aren't mature
>enough to try to get along with the GM who is trying his/her
>best to create a good time for everyone involved, then get
>the hell out of the campaign. Bringing in a character just
>for the purpose of irritating anyone isn't roleplaying, it's
>childish. If you don't like the campaign, leave.
>Axly

Gee...did I say I wanted to irritate anyone? No. If my
playing a free-spirited and individualistic PC would
irritate you, then you should take a Valium! Please:
*do not read things into what I say*. I am not some
uninformed munchkin, my good man. I have always felt,
however, that those GMs who needed to have total
control are uninformed muchkins. Or at least highly
A-R.


_______________________________________________________________________
|  "Did you have intercourse with  | More of what you want, for less! |
|              Mary?"              |  *** Roach Powder, 50% off! ***  |
|       "Yes...yes, I did."        |    *****  Ask for Bill. *****    |
|               ___                |----------------------------------|
|  "Oh! You are sick, aren't you?" |  Kromm is CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA  |
|        -from Eraserhead.         |        -->Who are you?<--        |
|__________________________________|__________________________________|
From: kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: RPG's That Belong on Every Gamer's Shelf
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:24:51 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

My top five picks (in no particular order)

1) Storyteller
2) Paranoia
3) AD&D 1st Edition
4) Call of Cthulhu
5) TimeLords (by BTRC)
-- 
Mark Kinney [KINNEMA@WKUVX1.(BITNET)(WKU.EDU)] | Give me Slack OR KILL ME!
PhoneNet: (502) 745-4246   (Bowling Green, KY) | K A /\ /\ I E T I
Quote of the week: "No, just *a* Zaphod Beeblebrox.  Didn't you hear I
	come in six-packs?" -- Zaphod Beeblebrox, _Restaurant at the End of
							the Universe_
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs. Random Generation
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:47:52 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Nov18.093100.1@slacvx.slac.stanford.edu>, belcinski@slacvx.slac.stanford.edu writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.170353.8161@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov11.142501.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.165943.3825@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>>>> In article <loren.199@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
>> 
>>>>     As I've explained in other newsgroups, nobody walks around
>>>> waiting to be persuaded to the opposite opinion.  Oh yeah, and don't
>>>> try to "force" me to think I'm wrong on this by writing a rebuttal.

Watch your attributions. That was Mr. Cassidy typing, not me. You can
tell because though we agree with each other I wouldn't end up a post by
daring the other person to rebut me, especially if I agreed with them.

> The whole debate seems to hinge on whether one method or the other is more
> capable of producing an internally consistent character (i.e. "the character
> makes sense.").

The debate doesn't always hinge on the internally consistent character.
The other part of the debate is character generation time (and character
mortality). If you have a game with high character mortality then you
need to have quick and easy character generation. Also, some people just
prefer faster character generation. RA is okay for making moderately
complex characters quickly, but PA isn't. PA will always take more time,
because it offers more choices, and if you require the players to
account for points then PA gets even lengthier.

So if you agree that both RA and PA can give acceptable characters, as I
do, then the time factor may make a big difference. Also, RA is often
easier to deal with for GMs, since it's quicker and requires less GM and
table consultation for character generation.

But if you need "perfect" characters every time, then I agree that PA is
your best shot.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu