HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: wound.types
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:02:44 GMT

I wrote ...
>>Note this system uses the wound state system along with the hit point
>>system.  I think that the resulting system is well balanced and could
>>be greatly superior to either a regular hit point system or a normal
>>wound state system.  As I have not tested the system yet, I do not
>>know how well it will work in actual game playing.
Tony Pace replied
>Another point - if the main problem of wound level systems is the 
>amount of bookkeeping involved, then how will this system help?

I did not say that the amount of bookeeping would be reduced.  I
said you could use this systems without referencing any _tables_.
There are some who do not like to be constantly consulting tables,
and this system would prevent you from using tables.  That is the
advantage I was trying to point out.

Note that any realistic wound system will require a great deal
of bookeeping.  If one does not want the complexity, he or she
will have to deal with lower realism.

>Note that Cyberpunk 2020 already uses such a system, where a 
>fixed amount of "hit points" causes the wound level of the 
>character to increase.

I have run first edition CyberPunk many times and feel that its
combat systems is one of the best available for realism with
ease of play.  Why they redid it for second edition, I do not
know.  (It does make use of a table, however, for wound deter-
minitation.)

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: naam@cecer.army.mil (Ramez Naam)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats.ideas
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:54:35 GMT

cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

>I do not believe, however, that this problem is insurmountable, in
>fact, I believe the mechanism for combatting the problem has already
>been discussed by the group, _ie._ the ability tree.  In my view of
>this mechanic, the final form of net.rpg will come with a well
>fleshed-out ability tree of the general form
>                        A1
>                    /       \
>        B1                              B2
>   /    |     \                     /   |    \
>C1      C2      C3              D1      D2       D3
>etc.    etc.    etc.            etc.    etc.    etc.

>I also think that there is generally a tendency among game designers
>to add, and sometimes necessitate the use of, symmetry in role playing
>design.  This means that if B1 has three subcategories, B2 must have
>three subcategories.  I would like to state again that this practice
>is probably unneccessary and may be unrealistic and needlessly
>cumbersome.  I think that if a few stats are used (say, between four
>and seven) symmetry is nice and can be handled easily.  If one uses
>more abilities, generally in an attempt to increase realism, pedantic
>use of symmetry tends to erode the realism and does not serve any
>worthwhile purpose.

I agree with you completely that trees (and not just at the
ability/skill level, but at levels of detail of the rules) are the best
way to design a flexible game system.  I disagree with you on symmetry,
though.  Symmetry has very real advantages in that
a.)	It's more intuitive.  If B1 has two children, and B1 and B2 are
	both children of B, then, as a player, I'm going to suspect that
	B2 has 2 children, as well.  I think it's very important for
	a game as complicated as any multi-genre game has to be, that
	the game have clear, consistent patterns in the rules.

b.)	In a point based system, it's desirable for all skills/stats to
	cost the same number of points (at the same level).  This is
	ONLY possible if the skill/stat tree is symmetric.  Ie..if all
	4th level skills (ie...fourth 'generation' of the tree) cost 1
	point per level, but some 3rd generation skills have 3 children
	and some have 2 children, then not all 3rd generation skills
	will cost the same.

My stat tree would be something like:
			All stats
		Physical	Mental/Magical

			Physical
		Fortitude	Coordination

			Mental/Magical
		Mental		Magical	

			Fortitude
		Constitution	Strength

			Coordination
	Hand-eye (Dexterity)	Whole body (Agility)

			Mental
		Willpower	Intelligence

			Magical
	Power/Resistance	Luck/Intuition/Sensitivity

As you can see, I like binary trees...  Anyway, that's roughly
how the game system I've been working on for the last 2 years works.

--
Ramez Naam
naam@terra.cecer.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mcs52867@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike)
Subject: FUDGE?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:55:17 GMT

hi there
sorry if i'm ignorant, but what is FUDGE?
besides being something you eat and a toned-down obsenity? :)
thanks
mike (newbie)
mcs52867@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: mdlcpgs@lhn.gns.cri.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: RE: FUDGE Evolution
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:13:25 GMT  
Organization: Institute of Gelogical & Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand.

>	The precedents are important to players as well as GM's.  I ran a
>system with "invisible" mechanics once called "the Multiverse".  The
>plot was sort of a Riverworld take-off.  You were allowed to play anyone
>at all, real or fictitious.  Character design involved giving yourself a
>bunch of skills (not picked from any list) and rating them Poor, Fair,
>Good, Excellent, or Superb, and sending me a character history.  The
>problem was, since no one knew the mechanics (i.e. no precedents) there
>was no easy way for them to judge how likely they were to succeed at an
>action.  This problem goes away with sufficient play, but early on
>players were very hesitant.  In a detailed game, you may even be able to
>work out the percentage chance of your success.  In my mind, that is a
>bad thing, but it is nice to have some idea how things will work
>*before* you try them.  These adventurer types are supposed to know
>about this stuff already.

Well you could include a note on GM style to help. If the characters
dont know the mechanics, then deciding whether a 10' foot jump is
too difficult etc is a problem. If the GM instead describes the
jump as "easy", "difficult" , "are you superman", then the problem
goes away. The GM doesnt even have to think about the distance - just
how difficult it should be which is much more normal GM mode and
right into the FUDGE system. especially useful when you dont do much
background work and dont really have a feel for what place looks like
anyway at the critical moment. 

I think FUDGE will disappoint people deeply into the mathematical
gaming aspects (ie the type that tell you the chance of a 12 on 
dice without thinking, minimax every character etc), and those
who are essentially role-playing but I think it looks a great system
for people building a story - keeps GM and players minds on the
important things. (IMHO of course)
	Phil
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: response.FAQ
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:19:23 GMT

Ramez Naam suggests the stat tree:
>			All Stats
>		Physical	Mental
>			Physical
>		Fortitude	Coordination
>			Fortitude
>		Strength	Constitution
>			Coordination
>	Dexterity(hand/eye)	Agility(whole body/balance)
>			Mental
>		Intellectual	Instinctive/Subconscious
>			Intellectual
>		Reasoning	Discipline/Willpower
>			Instinctive
>	Intuition/Creativity	Personality/Charisma
should be utilised when the genre does not have magic, as
opposed to the bianary tree appearing in the most recent
FAQ.

The problem I have with this idea is that you end up with
two totally different trees--one for magical genres and one
for non-magical genres.  The advantage of the non-symmetric
tree is that a given branch may be disregarded and thus remove
magic from the game without altering the form of the ability
tree.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: FUDGE: Scale
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:50:08 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

Here's a thought about scales of things, especially related to sizes of
creatures and combat.

Rate each creature on a scale with human as norm.  Perhaps pounds could be
used but I will use some examples.

+2=dragon
+1=giant 
 0=human
-1=normal dog
-2=cat, bunny
-3=mouse
-4=gnat
etc.

When things on the same scale fight no adjustment is
needed.  When things of different size fight adjust damage done and
received as follows.

If something is 3 sizes or more larger it squashes a foe if it hits.  A
GM may rule that the squashie is "merely" on the brink of death instead.

If something is 2 size bigger on anything but a Terrible or Poor damage 
roll the foe is squashed as above.  Otherwise a Poor blow becomes Superb
and a Terrible one becomes Great.

If something is 1 size larger increase the damage done by two levels, e.g.,
Terrible becomes Mediocre.

If something is smaller reverse the above.

Something 1 size smaller reduces damage levels by 2.

Something 2 sizes smaller needs a Great hit to do Poor damage and a Superb
hit to do Terrible damage.  Everything else bounces.

Something 3 sizes smaller can't do significant damage unless it can 
somehow do better than Superb.

Perhaps someone else can think of a more FUDGEish way to express the above.
I don't think this is too complicated as it isn't something that comes up
too often.

Optionally you could use the normal success words for describing size
though that might sound funny and would limit the levels of size.

Note:  Especially with things very much smaller on the scale if they are
moving they ought to be very hard to hit.
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE combat
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 03:33:05 GMT

skinner@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com (Andy Skinner) writes:
[proposal for all-out attack and all-out defense omitted]

Great!  I just added it, thanks!

>When do you think
>a person has done very well on a skill attempt?  When they roll double sixes?
>When they get a level+4 result (same except for modifiers)?  When they get
>a _relative_ degree of +4?  Usually you do well when you roll over the
>degree of the task or rolled degree of the opponent (really same thing, one
>is set and the other is rolled), but in combat you get a critical on 12 or 2,
>no matter how well the opponent did or what your degree is.  This isn't
>necessarily bad, but I'm just raising the question.  I don't know which one
>I would choose for the above Defense Only (or whatever you want to call it)
>option.

The way it is now, you only crit on a raw roll of 2 or 12.  Adding +4
relative degree sounds good to me - anybody else have an opinion on
this?
>
>Steffan, can you give us a hint on what you are thinking about different
>scales?  I can't come up with an objective form of this that doesn't involve
>multiplication, but that's what I think of when I hear the word "scale".

Hmm - I posted this two days ago - did it never get through?  It's true
no one commented on it, but I thought other posts of mine at that time
were being commented on.  The subject had the word Scale in it, I hope,
but I don't remember it precisely.  Did anyone see this?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: apace@mta.ca
Subject: Re: net.rpg - a damage system v1.1
Reply-To: apace@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:04:35 GMT

Robert,
   I appreciate and am grateful for the large amount of work that you have
done on your damage system, but in the end I have only one comment.

No.


	"Sublett said it was the Devil's work.
	 Rydell said it was a Tokyo franchise operation."
	          _Virtual Light_   -    William Gibson.

	 Tony Pace           -            <apace@mta.ca>   


Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: net.rpg - A damage system
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:39:56 GMT

hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>Here's bits and pieces of a sample damage system I'll throw out on the 
>table for general critique and dissection (or just for laughs). 
...
>Here's a sample of a Level 2 systems table for a human character:
>
>    %    Target  External System  Serious  Critical  Level  Armor
>  -----  ------  ---------------  -------  --------  -----  -----
>  01-30    -1    Protection         10        20
>  31-40    -3    Mobility            6        12
>  41-50    -3    Weapons             5         8
>  51-55    -6    Senses              1         2
>  56-60    -5    Miscellaneous       3        10
>
>    %    Target  Internal System  Serious  Critical  Prot.  Armor
>  -----  ------  ---------------  -------  --------  -----  -----
>  60-65    -4    Power               1         2       4
>  66-85    -2    Energy              2         4       2
>  86-90    -3    Command             1         2       3
>  91-00    -2    Miscellaneous       2         5       2
>

	Well, I've played with a somewhat less complicated system which 
had this sort of abstraction to damage. However, I found that it consistant-
ly came up with results which were hard to explain, and (more importantly) 
it gave a very abstracted feeling to combat. 

	Hard to explain results happen because systems are interconnected. 
Ex. An external blow damages Senses - roll on a chart shows Taste. Moving 
back to reality, a thrown spear has just damaged someone's tongue (?). He 
should also have trouble talking and even breathing at this point due to 
damage to his jaw and blood in his mouth. Etc. 

	When you start calculating damage as N points to Energy systems, it 
is difficult to keep the feeling that this is a role-playing game of people, 
rather than a wargame about biomechanical constructs. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         | 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:57:37 -0500 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: net.rpg: magic.ideas
	<1992Dec13.202347@IASTATE.EDU>

>I would say that you and I just do not agree on the role of
>magic in a world.  I do not believe magic should be a science.
>I do not believe Psionics should be used in a world with 
>magic.  I do not wish to sound antagonistic or start a flame
>war; I simply do not agree with your opinions, and there is
>no reason you should agree with mine.
> 
>Thanks for your comments, though.

What, exactly, was the purpose of this post??

-Me

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga)
Subject: FUDGE On The Fly Character Design
Keywords: FUDGE progressive character design
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:39:24 GMT

I've been having some fun lately running games in which the character
gets designed during play. (I think I posted on the topic on frp.misc
a while ago.)  While such play lends itself to systemless play, I have
been trying to figure out a system for doing it, since gamers seem to
take things much more seriously when they come with systems...

Might I suggest as an option in FUDGE the following system: You may
start the game with a completely BLANK character sheet, and 18 points.
You then may spend these points to give your character gifts, skills,
attributes, and faults, during the game, at the standard 1 gift = 2
attributes = 3 skills rate...  However, you may never place a skill,
gift, or attribute on the sheet without actually using it in the game.

And, if you do anything which obviously implies a certain level of
skill, or a certain trait, such as trying to fight for your life, or
playing the guitar, you must decide on your trait level RIGHT THERE.
For that game, at least, you can not improve it after that without a
good reason (such as that you were deliberately faking a low level of
ability).

Using this system, the number of experience points given should never
be more than six minus the number of points left unspent.  Thus a
character who has saved up six points will not get any experience
points from an adventure.  (Experience points, like character
generation points, must be used during a game, while the trait
concerned is actually in play.)  The GM may freely give LESS than this
amount, and usually should, saving the highest possible amount for the
most exemplary adventures.

This creates the dilemma: if you save up points, you'll have lots to
tailor your character to precise challenges that come up.  On the
other hand, if you use them up, you get more.

The whole system makes playing into a process of "discovering" your
character, and allowing him to be molded by the story and his
environment.  As if you were writing a story off the top of your head,
in stead of planning things in detail beforehand.

What do y'all think?

--Ed
Edward James Heil
c/o Chris Lantinga, clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu
"There is nothing wrong with the software that rm won't cure."
		-Arnie Romo
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: FUDGE Playtesting
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:39:19 GMT

Okay, I just looked over the changes I have made since FUDGE 12/12, and
they are extremely minimal and cosmetic.  Anyone wishing to playtest
FUDGE over the holidays can safely use Ver. 12/12.

At this point, what it needs most is playtesting to check out the
assumptions and basic mechanics of play.  Weak points that I'm not
happy with include Scale, Hit Points, Damage, etc.  There may well be
other weaknesses that should be found.

Any and all playtest comments welcome!  Happy holidays,

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg - damage system
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:27:08 GMT

Robert Hall presented a very detailed damage system.  I feel,
though it is very realistic, that it would be cumbersome to
implement and tedious to play.  I like the idea of dividing the
hit locations into function rather than position, but I think
the combat system should be simpler or that a streamlined version
be available for those who do not want the added bother. 

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Healing?
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:15:48 GMT

"Peter F. Delaney" <pd1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>On second thought, you probably don't want to add complexity here.  Any
>additions are going to be restrictive, not helpful.  I still think this
>is sticky, but the rules should *NOT* address the issue, to retain
>generality as well as to allow individuals to retailor the rules quickly
>based on the situation.  Apologies for the classic no-brainer on this
>one.

Not a no-brainer at all.  In fact, I *have* addressed the issue, and
ammended the appropriate section, based on a train of thought started
by your earlier post.  Your name goes in the Suggestions section -
thanks!

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: FUDGE: Terminology change
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:46:48 GMT
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

It was pointed out that I have used an ambiguous term in the new Hit
Point scale: Disabled.  A "disabled person" has meanings beyond what I
had intended.

Therefore, do a global search and replace: change Disabled to
Incapacitated, which has a more precise meaning.  Careful: there are
two cases where I talk about "a Disabled person" which must be changed
to "an Incapacitated person."

Sorry about the imprecision . . . thanks for the feedback.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Damage Proposal
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<1992Dec10.214439.5330@oz.plymouth.edu> <78118@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 03:41:19 GMT

gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works) writes:

I'm trying to understand your proposal.  It sounds interesting, but I
don't quite get it.

>Now for the fun part:  assign each wound a Damage Level (from Terrible to
>Superb, or whatever range you are using).  

How is this damage level assigned?  Strictly subjectively, or is there an
objective way?

I see that the rest is a simple Unopposed roll, with degree task equal
to the damage level, but specialized results, relative to Hurt.  But I
just don't get the first step yet . . .

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: d8ilvja@dtek.chalmers.se (Jakob Ilves)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: What happened to the REAL net.rpg
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:01:05 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <18441@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>How do you think game designers who aren't interested in role-playing-games
>at all feel.  This whole group is a waste of time.

Use a real newsreader then :).

I skip all that r.p.g stuff by just glancing at the "thread" selector
trn uses and pressing the right keys a few times.

DO NOT COMPLAIN ON THOSE WHO POST R-P-G ARTICLES!! They almost always
puts a proper keyword in the subject.

just my 2$ :)

Bye

/Ilvja
(Jakob Ilves) <d8ilvja@dtek.chalmers.se>
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: mss2e@Virginia.EDU ("ardly know ")
Subject: Timber Chess
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:31:28 GMT

	I hosted an exchange student from Finaland once who
taught me the most fascinating game.  The nearest traslation of
it is "Timber Chess", and the rules are very simple, but he
says there are whole books written on the strategy in Finland.


	All you need is a sheet of graph paper and two
pencils.  You be Xs, get your buddy to be Os.  Just play tick
tac toe, except you can go anywhere you want, and the first
person to get five in a row wins.  It is a fantastic game.


	Mick Stone