HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laurence@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Lee Laurence)
Subject: Re: A new trend in roleplaying?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:09:29 GMT

millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

[...]

>To answer Peter's question, I think that the single most
>under-represented field for roleplaying has been presentation of real
>historical material from our own earth. Anything that addresses that
>discrepancy intelligently would be welcome.

Agreed entirely.  I happen to like the Campaign Classics books from
ICE, even though I never use their system-related stuff, because the
ones I have looked at present more historical information than usual.
The survey of twelfth-century England makes the Robin Hood CC book
a bargain to me, for example.

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but Loren is exactly right.
This is the biggest hole in role-playing material.  Fill it, and
you'll sell books to me.

-- 
Dustin

laurence@alice.wonderland.caltech.edu
From: cadpoole@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Dale Poole)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Hello from Dragon's Eye
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:18:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: jupiter.1992Apr12.161828.17044
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island

In article <iqu4iB1w164w@wixer.cactus.org> cat@wixer.cactus.org (Dr. Cat) writes:
>Just thought I'd let everyone know I'm here.  I've been a professional
>game designer for ten years, five of them spent at Origin Systems (I
>was the head writer on Ultima VI).  I've just recently founded my own
>company, Dragon's Eye Productions.
>
>                                        Dr. Cat

Heya Dr. Cat!

I too am a game designer (or trying to be one...hahahahah)

What are you currently working on?  Care to share any details?

Daleus
cadpoole@atlas.cs.upei.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: steve@oceania.com (Steve Dakin)
Subject: Re: Generic Object Description
Reply-To: steve@oceania.com
Organization: Oceania Health Care Systems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 22:09:04 GMT


Regarding Chris Harwood-Jones ideas about a generic object description and  
Darrell Ulm's retorts, I'd just like to say that judging by what I read, Chris  
would have a chance at actually designing, writing and finishing a game using  
his ideas, Darrell would not.  It's helpful to occasionally explore the  
theoretical world, but if you want to actually complete a project, it's more  
critical to keep one foot on the ground.

Happy designing,

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 13:58:11 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Skills/Attributes-General query
	<strjvb.akuma@netcom.com>

>numbers.  Your idea, while perhaps mathematically pleasing, would be
>even worse, since we are multiplying by non-integral values.  Basically
>a calculator would be mandatory.

	Multiplying a number by something by 2.5 is the same as multiplying by
25 and moving the decimal place, or you could limit it to 1, 2, or 3.
	Dividing is a bit more of a bitch, making calculators a bit more needed.

>Of course, these skills could be calculated in advance, but how would
>you handle difficulty modifiers?  I would assume more multipliers
>would be involved.

	I would use multipliers, simply because I don't mind using a
calculator. I mind the number of steps more than the difficulty of a
step.
	Raising something to a power I mind less than chart look ups, simply
because typing three keys in a calculator is something I prefer to
searching texts.

	On the other hand, you could always simply subtract. Something might
have a -25% or some such.

As I like simple equations, one of my favorite equations for skills is:
	chance = .8^(skill level needed/skill level)

	The above determines that at a given level of skill, there is a good
(80%) chance of success. It has the advantage that it can never exceed
1, a problem with other systems. The disadvantage is that you NEED a
calculator to do it out.

	Currently, I'm thinking of much simpler mechanics, since I don't really
care about designing a system that closely mimics reality, just hints at
it. The above was more detailed attempts I've made in the past.

-Me
From: 911087e@ace.acadiau.ca (John Enzinas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Craig Judd--How do I reach you?
Date: 6 Apr 92 00:42:27 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <1992Apr5.073404.7749@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> cadpoole@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Dale Poole) writes:


>I'd like to discuss a couple of points however.  My problem is that the path
>from your site was muddled with a plethora of punctuation, and various vague
>user names, etc.

I tried to mail him too but the user was unknown
this is the second time that i have had a problem contacting australia from 
canada. maybe that has something to do with it?
--johnny vague

*****EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE IS TRUE*******************************
Pansexuals of the world Unite!!!!!!
                  911087e@ace.acadiau.ca <johnny vague>
                               So what If I said it, You Believed it!
*****EVERY THING ABOVE THIS LINE IS FALSE*****************************
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:58:49 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Generic Object Description
	<1992Apr13.141226.26370@nynexst.com>

>Well, you're getting a little too specific for types.  Maybe just
>"life form", and then some parameters which modify the life form
>(such as physical characteristics, etc which all add up to 'troll').
>
>I was hoping that instead of types (which we would all have to sit
>down and make a great big list of), we could have a list of parameters

	You misunderstood. What I meant by 'type' was a generalized
description. Essentially, one would detail an 'average type', which
would be characterstics that would change least and fully describe most
things within a type. This 'average type' could then be tweaked for each
individual example, and allow things of the same type to have certain
similarities.
	Types could be expanded as much as you want, I was thinking of it more
as a convenience than as hard-coded.

Example:
	Someone defines 'life form' to be able to move under it's own power,
require fuel, and has some decision making capability, as well as
composition. The fuel type will be based on WHAT kind of life form (eats
animals, plants, energy, etc), though the amount of fuel used will vary
highly.

Sorry for the confusion...

>Problem:  Suppose I design a sword object, and then want to hit someone
over the
>head with the flat of my sword.  This should not kill that person.  But if I
>do not specify what happens, I would just kill the person because the sword is
>sharp and force-multiplicative.  How can we design a system where I can say
>"Hit man on head with flat of sword" and have the right things happen?  Does
>the object designer need to pull this out as a special case and write a
>function for it?  Probably, since the "flat" of a sword is different from the
>"flat" of a gun, especially since guns have no flat!

Use a different action... for example, 'hit <target> with <object>' just
smacks a target with a flat or blunt part of your object. 'cut' can be
used if you have a sharp edge, and 'stab' if you have a point.

-Me
From: tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: PBeM: creating/joining governments?
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:42:13 GMT
	<1992Apr10.100841.1586@cs.tcd.ie>
Reply-To: tar@isi.edu
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: droe@cs.tcd.ie's message of 10 Apr 92 10:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.100841.1586@cs.tcd.ie> droe@cs.tcd.ie (David Roe) writes:

	[lots about Republic of Rome deleted]

   BTW, in a later posting, someone mentioned Brittania had a similar system
   - does it? Ive never seen it.

	   Dave Roe.

I'm not sure about Brittania, but there were some interesting treaty
rules in the game PAX BRITTANICA:

  o Treaties were required to be written (so there would be no
    disputes as to the agreement)

  o Treaties could be either public or secret.

  o Treaties were binding, enforced by the threat of war (see next item).

  o If a treaty were broken, then the agrieved party had a "casus
    belli" against the treaty-breaker.(*)

  o All broken treaties, secret or public, could lead to war if
    broken.  This is why treaties were written.  If a secret treaty
    were not in writing, then it could not serve as a "casus belli"
    because it would be impossible for "world public opinion" to be
    persuaded that a treaty had been broken.


(*) This was important, because one could only attack other players
for cause.  In other words, one could not attack other players' forces
unless there was some legitimate grievance.  Of course, one could
always try to create some incident that would allow a declaration of
war... 

On the other hand, just because one had a "casus belli" it did not
mean it was in the player's interest to declare war.  A prime example
was someone not honoring a mutual defense pact:  The last thing you
would want to do if under attack by a third party is to declare war on
your (former) treaty partner!
Xref: sparky rec.games.design:957 alt.games.gb:645 rec.games.board:4948 rec.games.empire:1452 rec.games.frp:17546 rec.games.misc:12019 rec.games.pbm:1026 rec.games.programmer:2007
From: bof@cs.uq.oz.au (Mark Bofinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,alt.games.gb,rec.games.board,rec.games.empire,rec.games.frp,rec.games.misc,rec.games.pbm,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Call for Opinions on Play-By-Computer Games
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: bof@cs.uq.oz.au
Followup-To: rec.games.design


   Call for Opinions on Play-By-Computer Games

   I'm looking for people's views on games that have been or could be
transplanted onto or designed for a computer. More specifically, what are
the features of the above sorts of games that made them succeed, fail or
interesting to implement? What are the main differences between them and
their non-automated counterparts?

   This question is mainly oriented towards games that are not hand-eye
coordination exercises.

   What I am not looking for is discussions of little-known rules in
little-known games, rather the general features. Also, even though this
posting is made to a number of groups, I would request all communication
be kept to either rec.games.design or mail to me personally.

   Some points to consider:

      - How involved are the record-keeping and rules evaluation (is a
computer necessary for this alone);

      - How subjective are the descriptions of the rules and records (can
they be easily made into an algorithm);

      - What are the game requirements of the computer (hardware and
software for players and/or organisers);

      - What are the game requirements of the players and/or organisers
(intermittent playing, continuous monitoring, large knowledge of rules);

      - Who were or might be the usual winners of the game (rules daemon,
20-hour per day typing freak, strategist or tactician);

      - How much is the success of the game dependent upon the players
(is the cooperation of all or nearly all the players required or are
inactive players no hinderance);

      - How much do real-world events control the game-mechanics, players
and computers (what effect does geographic and time-zone location have,
how much are tactics based upon real-world timing rather than game-timing);

      - How much do pre-game arrangements between players count for (can
alliances and information be effectively swapped between players);

      - Can one or more players be effectively replaced by the computer (can
a multi-player game be played with only one human player without ruining the
game);

   Thanks in advance for contributions.

----
bof@cs.uq.oz.au

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Generic Object Description
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:53:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.122118.18936@mcs.kent.edu> dulm@Gradsun3.kent.edu (Darrell Ulm) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.220904.14807@oceania.com> steve@oceania.com writes:

  <frothing at the mouth deleted>

(puzzled) I do not recall any 'retorts' by anyone.  I only recall
some ideas and suggestions.

--Rob

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: laurence@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Lee Laurence)
Subject: Re: A new trend in roleplaying?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:10:06 GMT

One thing I may not like about TPO is that it sounds like it presents
a single model for gods, etc.  How "gods" work is very, very campaign
dependent, just as it is story dependent in fantasy fiction.  I may
have the wrong impression of how TPO handles this, but what I would
like for such a book would be an in depth look at many, many different
ways of handling this.

As I see it, there are three kinds of sources for RP supplements:
history, real legends (things that a number of people do or did
believe), and modern fantasy fiction.  For most topics, this is
roughly in order of importance to me.

What I would want to see in a book like TPO is to be able to understand
the underlying assumptions and world view that produced different
mythological systems.  If by an integrated approach you mean a common
way to handle all of these differing ideas, then that's great.  But if
you have to twist and shape them to make them all fit together --a la
the (to me) horrible mish-mash of theologies rampant in the official
*D&D worlds-- then I'm not so interested.

To turn to other topics for supplements, I think that you mentioned
The Military Order; I'll use it for an example, anyway.  What I would
like most to see is an in depth survey of military history from the
earliest records up to (and perhaps including the early years of)
gunpowder.  I'd want to see the broad sweep of weapons, military
doctrine, and organization and their interactions with themselves and
with the societies which invented them.  I'd also want to see that you
included non-european sources.

Equal in interest would be the weapons, military doctrine, and
organization evident in real legends.  While the fact that Mallory has
a bunch of Normans with no conception of strategy or tactics defeat the
Holy Roman Empire may have little to do with history or even common
sense, it is consistent with his assumptions about Chivalrous combat.

Last but still important is the same questions for modern fantasy
fiction.  The reason I'm interested in these questions most of all is
that I am highly unlikely to use any given thing that you invent.  I
am an incurable tinkerer.  What I need is not to see all of the gory
details of your ideas, but to see enough of the basic ideas of the
field so that when I invent a culture or a nation I can better build
a military system (in the case of TMO) for them that is consistent with
history and/or myth (depending on the emphasis of that campaign).

I'll likely buy things which help me to better build my own things, and
likely not buy things which detail someone else's things.

-- 
Dustin

laurence@alice.wonderland.caltech.edu
From: wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Generic Object Description
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:50:34 GMT
	<1992Apr9.212839.18208@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>  Yes, simulations can get very detailed, but the amount of
>information for each object grows as your world becomes more precise.
>I'd hate to have to enter the chemical composition of a cave troll
>just to have something interesting in the cave...

How about having types of objects, so that you only vary the
particulars? Like- 'terrestrial animal life form' for people and similar
beings, 'trollish animal life form' for a variety of beings based on,
say, a troll type composition. And so forth. ('masonry' could handle a
lot, and so forth)

-Meow
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: Re: A new trend in roleplaying?
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
	<1992Apr6.211345.4503@ncsu.edu> <1992Apr6.222317.1@wharton.upenn.edu>
	<1992Apr7.040929.20020@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 10:28:02 GMT

To comment on historical information in gaming it is our intention to
have lots of this within the TPO product *line*.  TPO itself is pretty
generic, system-independent, and, admitedly, somewhat more mechanical
than what you, Dustin, are probably looking for.

However, I felt that it was important to initially establish a
foundation to build on.  That foundation is a detailed proposal of
exactly what deities are and what they can do.  I'm into what we call
*pandevelopment,* which means "the continual process of plausibly
developing a campaign on all fronts."  So, even though I value source
material extremely highly, I prefer them to go hand in hand with a set
of solid rules.  And I generally want the rules first.

We currently have a couple projects underway which fall more closely
toward what you're looking for, and we're about to receive proposals
on two more (right Loren?).

Hold on, we're confident that you'll see something in here that you'll
think is just swish.

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
				  mavra@blegga.cac.washington.edu

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Generic Object Description
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:22:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr14.212256.25896
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: {not speaking for the} University of Illinois at Urbana
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> 	Someone defines 'life form' to be able to move under it's own power,
> require fuel, and has some decision making capability, as well as
> composition. The fuel type will be based on WHAT kind of life form (eats
> animals, plants, energy, etc), though the amount of fuel used will vary
> highly.

Neat.  And then, we can have whole virtual ecologies, where various `life
forms' move around and eat each other.  This should really contribute to
the effect that you're interacting with a real world, not just a fake world
presented for your personal gaming use.
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  I speak for myself, and not for the State or University of Illinois.
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
From: WJR@Go-Player.SCH.Symbolics.COM (Wayne J. Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Dice game (popular in my FRP campaign)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:43:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.154300.12687
Reply-To: <wjr@PHOENIX.SCH.Symbolics.COM>
Organization: Symbolics Tech. Support
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-7676]: go-player.sch.symbolics.com


Here is a dice game that comes from my fantasy role playing 
campaign.  It is called Fred's Frustration. FF can be found
in most gambling institutions or places of chance.

Each player needs 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 1d20 (&optional 
1d30) to play.  

The players each put in a cover fee (or ante).

The player to the left of the previous round's winner or the
person with the highest roll starts the round.

Player rolls the lowest value die in his hand.  If it beats 
the highest value die hand on the board he stops and bets.
If not, he takes the next lowest die in his hand and rolls
until he can beat the best hand on the board or loses.  Each die
that a player roll must roll a number higher than his previous
die roll.  Failure to do so forces you to drop out.  Players 
bet when they beat the opponents hand.  Say a player rolls 
a 3 on his d4, but, still needs at least a 5 to get ahead of
the other players.  If he rolls a 4 or less on his d6 he loses.
If he rolls a 6 he places his bet.  If he rolls a 5, must
compare his next highest die roll to the other players with
a 5.  If he beats them he bets else continue rolling.

Play continues in a clockwise direction until all the players
have rolled their dice.  A person may drop out of the round
at any time, for example, if he has rolled his last die and
is not the highest hand, he should drop out.

Who wins?  The player with the highest value die roll wins 
the round. If there is a tie, all tied players go to the next 
largest die roll in their hand.  IF the highest value ties
again you continue until you've gone through all the dice.
If there is a tie, there are three posibilities (varies by
region or gambling hall):

most commmon 1)	a die is rolled for each tied player, highest
		die wins.

	     2)	The pot is split evenly by all the players who
		started the round.  Most often used in dishonest
		gambling houses.

	     3) the pot is split by all tied players.

Wayne J. Rasmussen
Xref: sparky rec.games.design:922 rec.games.pbm:992
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: PBeM: creating/joining governments?
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:55:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Apr7.013455.25354@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mxb8@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew Bakaitis) writes:
> 	I expect that giving the players some option to create "public"
> binding agreements, as in Republic of Rome, will aid players in creating
> some form of stable "government" on each planet.  This system of "government"
> should primarily dictate trade with other players and military response to
> the presence of foreign ships.

I haven't played RoR nor read the rules. Could you encapsulate these
public binding agreements, just describe briefly how they work as game
rules to govern a political decision?

Please?

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                  internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Throw this screen against the wall, right now!
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: A new trend in roleplaying?
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:23:17 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Apr6.211345.4503@ncsu.edu>, bjbisset@eos.ncsu.edu (BILLY JOE BISSETTE) writes:
> What I'm looking for are some precise weapon descriptions(stats not necessary
> if comparisons are given) and effects, something dealing with castles would be
> nice(I couldn't design a castle to save a kingdom), etc.

To answer the question you pose later, such a thing already exists. It's
the Palladium Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles.

To answer Peter's question, I think that the single most
under-represented field for roleplaying has been presentation of real
historical material from our own earth. Anything that addresses that
discrepancy intelligently would be welcome.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                  internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Throw this screen against the wall, right now!
Newsgroups: rec.games.design