HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re: Re: SF or FF?
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:42:23 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Jul29.152035.8662@cs.umn.edu>, thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
> In article <13839@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>>> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
... and 100 others...

What is SF about?

SF is about science of the future. So if FTL may be invented in the future then
a story containing FTL can be called SF.

Science today states that xyz is impossible - this only means that xyz is
impossible according to their theory (which only partially models reality)
at this time. Given time their theory will probably change and xyz may become
possible. Take Flying - how many people thought this was impossible.
          Take a Submarine - no one thought it was possible.
          Take landing on the moon ...
          Take a motor car ...
          Take TV ...
          Take a Hologram ...
          Take radio ...
          Take the light bulb ...
          Take the splitting of an atom by Rutherford ...
          Take an atom bomb ...
          Take the Earth - when most people thought it was flat ...

All these were considered impossible, yet someone did it.
Therefore, no one can say "This doesn't belong to SF" as they don't know
what science could be developed in the future (or the past).

Reguardless of whether you think something is impossible, it may be possible,
so you can't write off 90% of SF because you feel that it is impossible.
SF has been an inspiration to Science for years, why can't it be an inspiration
in the future.

When some physics law says something is impossible, you must remember that it
is only another theory, and it may be wrong. - just like the theory of god.
They are theories modelling reality from one perspective. You can use theories,
but you shouldn't take a theory as being absolute and infalable.

=========================================
| Michael Perry    | Can you believe in |
| RD1              | anything ...       |
| Taupiri          | ... absolutely.    |
| New Zealand      |                    |
=========================================
I can recieve Email, but can't send.
From: jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: How to make Psionics work? ( was re: Psionics )
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:37:46 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

I have to admit that I have never seen a psionics system that I really liked.
In general, I exclude psionics from my games because it tends to be
inconsistent and unbalancing. 

Would anyone like to theorize as to why psionics is hard to make work ?

I have two thoughts:

Psionics is such a poorly defined thing. Every book and world has a different
interpretation. In some worlds telekinetics can throw cars and in others they
can only bend spoons. In some worlds telepaths can rip any information they
like from their victims but in others just catching a thought is tiring. Do
games try too hard to fit every world and thus fail to fit any?

Very few worlds have mechanisms to compensate for psionics. Philip K. Dick has
written many stories about the effect of psionics and how the world would
react. His view was that the authorities would move to control or eliminate
psionic powers. Another excellent series is the Saga of the Exiles ( Many
Coloured Land etc... ) by Julian May. Her worlds had fully integrated psionics
and included anti-psionic hatred from non-psionics and so on. They also
included abuses by and controls on psionics. Game worlds often tend to ignore
both negative reactions by non-psionics and the paranoia psionics would
inevitably ( IMHO ) cause in governments. This is something which a game which
truly wants to integrate psionics must address.

I look forward to further discussion in this vein... 

James Wadsley.
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:1359 rec.games.frp.dnd:2230
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: 10% XP bonus
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:40:36 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <marrou.712587959@eola.cs.ucf.edu> marrou@cs.ucf.edu (Lance R. Marrou) writes:

>Well, those characters with higher stats usually "learn" more than
>other characters.  What you are proposing is to advance the 
>"weaker" characters faster.  For example, two 1st level mages, one
>with an 18 INT and the other with a 14 INT start out together.
>Later, many years down the road, the one with a 14 INT will become
>an ArchMage before the other.  Sound reasonable? Not!  To _best_
>simulate (while keeping things easy) a character with better
>attributes learning faster, we give them a 10% bonus.  What I 
>don't understand is why some classes don't get any bonus.

Nice, but your analogy only works for mages and clerics.  Why would a
fighter with a strength 18/88 "learn" more than one with a strength
13?

Or should XP bonuses be based on intelligence/wisdom for *all* character
classes?


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "You're outmanned, you're outgunned, you're
Georgia Institute of Technology  |      outequipped what else have you got?"
Office of Information Technology | "Guile."
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |      -- Riker and Worf   "Peak Performance"
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:17:29 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

jen@athena.mit.edu writes:

> Which is better? Depends on what you want to use them for.  One
> person's opinion:  For superheroes, use HERO (CHAMPIONS).  For most
> other types of games, use GURPS.  I've played and GMed both systems
> quite a bit, though naturally I haven't played every genre GURPS
> offers.  I think HERO does a better job giving a strong
> comic-book/cinematic flavor to a game, if that's what you're looking
> for.  If you want something more "street-level" and realistic, GURPS
> is clearly superior.  (The biggest shock to both my players and myself
> when we went from a CHAMPIONS campaign to a GURPS campaign was how
> easy it was for our cherished characters to simply _die_, suddenly and
> with little warning; the level of bloodiness built into GURPS took a
> fair bit of getting used to after the comic-book-based CHAMPIONS
> combat system.)

I never understood this.  GURPS players tend to say it's more realistic
based on the fact that it is deadly.  So if I change my Champions game to
'all attacks do x4 damage,' I can say it's more realistic?  I can see no
support for the statement of, "If you want something more "street-level"
and realistic, GURPS is *clearly* superior."  (Note my emphasis on the
word clearly....)  It is hardly clearly.  I would say this, "GURPS tends
to handle things in a more realistic fashion that Hero."  GURPS, like any
other game, is a model, and peroidically fails to achieve realism.

However, what I like about Hero is the fact that it can be more easily 
modified to whatever end you want.  If all you need to feel that you are
being 'realistic' is higher damage, simply increase damage in the game.
No problem.  I like this, because Hero allows you to enforce your own
view of realism, whereas GURPS has a tendancy to force SJG's view of
realism on you.  Honestly, the system (GURPS) is not as mallaeble as it
could be.

If you buy into SGJ's version of 'realism' then GURPS may seem to be a nice
game.  However, I don't buy some of the times it takes to do certian things.
Yes, Hero would be no more realistic in such things, but Hero never claimed
to be based on realism.

And, contrary to GURPS belief, realism hardly makes a system 'universal.'

> Or you can combine them:  I had a lot of fun running a space-opera
> style game using CHAMPIONS mechanics while cribbing heavily from GURPS
> Space to design nearly every other aspect of the campaign.

I know of a Hero group that borrows things from GURPS.  To date, I've managed
to prove that every import they've made is either pointless or already in base
Hero rules.  Not that all imports you can think of fall into either of these
two catergories, but it seems most are.

-james
From: dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard)
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:40:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.141534.19062@rchland.ibm.com> BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>
>By the way, what does this have to do with role playing games advocacy?

Someone asked about good psionics systems, and the lack thereof, in games.

Dave K.
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:05:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Jul22.170929.1436@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sjm8118@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>      Does anyone else out there think that psionics is the copout of a SF 
>world designer that cannot work within the framework of his own SF world's
>technology to provide a good story/adventure?

	Odd. I just was discussing this in Email...

	Nope, I don't. First, any game designer SHOULD include psionic rules
in an SF game, for the sake of completeness. They're in SO many works of
great import and have great potentialities.

	Second, to address the "reality" issue. I don't find psionics to be
any more preposterous than many other SF staple concepts (FTL drive,
matter-transporters, etc). I use Psi in my games and I have a consistent,
logical, "scientific" explanation for their existence, their functioning,
and the whys and wherefores of (a) how they work, (b) why they don't work
[apparently] here on our earth, and (c) their precise relationship to
the other powers of the universe.

	
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: mortal@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (71079000)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST Superhero game
Date: 30 Jul 1992 07:06:21 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


As it happens, I've gotten out my old DC heroes game (1st edition), and I've
been looking it over. I have a couple problems with it, and I'd like to know
if they've been changed.

First, there's character creation:

Powers: Is it really necessary to have Starbolt, Bio-Energy Blast, Sonic Beam,
        and Heat Vision be separate powers? Couldn't they just all be variants
        on Energy Blast, a la Champions?

        This problem extends to a lot of things. If you want your character
        to have the exact same power as a DC hero that works fine, but it
        doesn't encourage creativity. Take, for instance, Jericho. His power,
        Personality Transfer, is precisely described, down to the control
        of the vocal chords (or rather, lack of same). This means that unless
        I want a character with EXACTLY the same power as Jericho (except for
        the eye contact), then I have what I want, but if I want a power
        SIMILAR to Jericho's, then things are much tougher. I would rather
        have the power defined more vaguely, and then altered with advantages
        and disadvantages, again a la Champs

Gadgets: This seemed like a pain and a half. Has it been improved?

Motivations: Why do you need to define it in three words or less? Seems
             too similar to the D&D Lawful-Neutral-Good-Pisces system.

Back to Powers: Why is Lightning a Mystical power? Is Lightning Lass
                a mystic hero? Is Black Lightning?

                This applys to a lot of "mystical powers": plant control,
                weather control, joined, etc.

Combat: Too vague at points. For instance, can you use more than one power
        in a multi-attack? Grappling seems too klunky and complicated.
        Devastating attack seems too general and easy to use, as does
        critical blo

And finally, when I played the Terminator against the Titans in combat,
    the Terminator was unable to last more than one round, and I know
    that's not right.

You may ask "Why isn't he playing Champions, then?" Well, I WANT to like
DC. I like the one-roll system. I like the straightforward style.

Champions, frankly, does not simulate the Comics very well to me. Combat
takes too long, and I lose the panel-by-panel rapid action feel of the comics.
I could make a list of my problems with Champs as well (Is it REALLY 
necessary to have CON and STUN and BODY and REC >and< PD >AND< ED?) but
it has a much better, IMHO, character creation system.

I'd love to hear about any changes in newer versions of DC.

 
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
+ Lore Christian        + "I want to be a lawyer--            +
+    Fitzgerald Sj|berg +  I want to be scholar--             +
+ mortal@ucscb.ucsc.edu +  But I really can't be bothered..." +
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: seah@fraser.sfu.ca (Simon Seah)
Subject: HERO - increasing acceleration
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:02:00 GMT

In HERO, one can buy movement, and then get non-combat multipliers.  It's
not impossible to buy 10"x1,024.
My question is, how do you accelerate faster?  I believe the rules state that
acceleration per phase has a maxima of combat movement per phase.
That means, in the above example, it would take 2 phases to reach 10" (5" acc.
base), then another 1,024 phases for max. speed.  For a SPD 5 character, that's
1,026 phases or about 205 turns, or 41 minutes!
Correct the math all you want, but no flames over it, please.

The point is, acceleration for high non-combat speed can be quite ridiculous.

Options I have thought of :
1) Buy SPD with limitation "for acceleration/deceleration only"
2) Buy combat movement, with "concentrate to half DCV"
	(poor simulation of non-combat movement)
3) Buy Autofire with the non-combat multipliers (wierd...)
4) Buy skill levels (but seems a little cheap? <- instinct, not thought)

Any other options?

Simon
- liberal GM
- and I HATE BENDING RULES! (personal bias against warping existing systems
without putting a lot of thought into it first)

Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:1272 rec.games.frp.misc:2949
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF roleplaying-fave system
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:04:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu


	My favorite SF system is Space Opera (FGU, almost but not quite
dead yet). The bugs in the system can be worked around fairly easily, 
it works with OR without the detail supplied (the rules are applicable
at different levels of complexity), the Star Sector atlases are the 
best stuff ever produced for any space game, and it has the best psionics
system of any game, period.

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:53:20 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:

> Basically every argument boils down to "Science Fiction is what *I* say it
> is."  You can tell me that Star Trek, Star Wars, and etc. aren't SF until you
> are blue in the face and I will still say they are (and someone else will say
> that ST is and SW isn't and someone else will say vice-versa and someone else
> will ...).
> 
> By the way, what does this have to do with role playing games advocacy?

We're exploring the issue of the definition of SF.  A lot of the arguments in
this group are based on vague definitions.  One person says X is and rpg, and
another person says it isn't an rpg, but they are using two completely
different definitions of rpg.  If as a group we could agree on a few terms and
definitions for those terms, such as what is a role-playing game and what is a
roll-playing game, or what is SF, Future fantasy, and fantasy, then we could
reduce the number of meaningless arguments.  This thread on psionics started
with a disagreement on whether psionics was inherently part of the SF genre. If
we had agreed on the definition of SF earlier, the answer would have been a
quick "no, but it can be a part of a SF game".

We can't debate if we can't agree on a common language.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jogle@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Mopheus (was Re: Reviews: Dangerous Journeys, Dreampark)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:01:58 GMT

In article <mumble> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:

>Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim) writes:
>>It was done before a couple of years ago in a game called Morpheus,
>>which was put out by, um, some really small company whose name I don't
>>quite remember (Stellar Games?  Rapport Games?).  
>
>It was Stellar, I believe. Good looking packaging, but according to a
>friend who had the misfortune to buy it, not worth even trying to read.
>Same goes for nightlife.

Just checked my copy of Morpheus and its by Rapport, not Stellar.
Nightlife (by Stellar) is a better read, certainly more organized and
coherent (!).

-- 
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, TORG guru)
jogle@aoc.nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:05:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Jul28.153500.19772@cs.umn.edu> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>In article <13803@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

	[ultra-hard definition of SF that excludes 99+% of all SF ever written]

>In which case there is almost no hard SF out there, and relatively little
>soft SF.  What "hard" SF usually means is that the scientific errors and

	Even less than you think...

>I just scanned several shelves of alleged science fiction.  Aside from the
>immediate-future stuff, Heinlein's _Rolling_Stones_ seems to qualify as
>soft SF.

	Nope. Not a chance. The little kid reads minds, especially that of
his grandmother.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca's message of 23 Jul 92 21:35:38 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 21:35:38 GMT, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
>>>>> said:

> Does anyone else out there think that psionics is the copout of a SF
> world designer that cannot work within the framework of his own SF
> world's technology to provide a good story/adventure?

NJ> I don't think it's a cop-out for that reason.  I think it's often a
NJ> cop-out in terms of tacking on some psi rules simply because other
NJ> games have psi rule sections (and just as bad, and tacked on for the
NJ> same reason).  I haven't seen psionics included properly in a game,
NJ> whereby they are an integral part of the rules and background.

You may want to take a look at PsiWorld, if you can still find it.
Mechanically it leaves a bit to be desired, but it does give a excellent
treatment to psionics in the "real world."

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox/   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:1364 rec.games.frp.dnd:2237
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: 10% XP bonus
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:25:36 GMT
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <4202@astroatc.UUCP> weeks%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu (Patrick Weeks) writes:

>	Hello All!  I was thinking again(I know it's dangerous...), but anyway.
>
>	Characters with 16+ or better in their prime requisite get a 10% XP
>bonus right??  WHY!!  I would think that a fighter with a 14 STR would gain
>more experience from a battle than a 18/95 fighter. . .

Think of it backwards.

It's easiest to see with Clerics and Mages:  their PRs (In & Wi) obviously allow
them to profit most from experience _qua_ experience.

But now let's look at fighters (must we?  They're always ugly and dirty. . .).
Instead of thinking of it as "experience," think of it as "how fast they get
good at killing things."  Obviously, a stronger character will get good at
killing things faster than a weaker character.

All this confusion, of course, is because of terminology; if you don't think of 
it as "experience" in the normal sense it's a lot easier to deal with.

It's also a lot easier to deal with if you dump character classes entirely, in 
favor of a skill-based system.  I've been experimenting with one on and off for 
several years.  Instead of gaining more experience (EP) because of your PR, high
stats make it "cost" less EP to "buy" a given skill/skill improvement.  To give 
you a frexample:  in the "arthur" rules system, it "costs" 1 kEP to learn the
spell "magic missile."  However, your In modifies this -- for example, an In
of 6 would make the spell "cost" 5% more EP; one of 18(00) would make it "cost"
25% less.

I'm working up a current set of revisions of the "arthur" system now; if 
anyone's interested, I'll offer an electronic edition for comment.


		He's got a mask that's black and white
		  Mine's just black but that's all right
		In silence and cunning he plies his trade
		  I ply mine in silence and shade
		[. . .]
		In the heart of the city it's murder time
		  It ain't no crime to kill a mime
			-- "Killing a Mime" by Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hero Games (was: ICE on the ropes)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:31:58 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

Actually, now that I think about it, if ICE *DOES* go under, I suspect the
license would revert to Elan Merchandising, who, if I remember right, are
pretty picky about who they let use the Middle-Earth name.  I really doubt
they'd let T$R get their grubby hands on it.

-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

This is a properly spelled version of the mimetic signature virus.  Copy it
into your .signature file and join in the fun today!