HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Weapons (Big & Small vs. Medium)
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:35:03 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Jul27.100628.89547@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> In article <2A721760.1831@ics.uci.edu>, mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:
>> I've noticed that characters in RPGs never carry medium-sized weapons.  Either
>> they carry a rifle or a pistol.  They almost never carry a submachine gun.
>> In fantasy games they carry a broadsword or, perhaps, a concealable dagger --
>> never a short sword.

	You need to see my group for my GURPS Fantasy/Horror/Cyber campaign --
virtually all of them have SMGs (except for a couple where it doesn't fit
character concept). SMGs used include (versions of) the Bergmann 1918, MP-5,
M-10 Ingram, Thompson (w/100 round drum...). Also, two of the characters (one
oriental, the other a .45 ACP nut  who looks like a gangster, carry katanas,
which I *would* class as medium weapons. Assault (ie, automatic) rifles are
illegal, and they usually don't care to tote around semi-auto rifles (except
for boomer-busters).

> 
>> If they're not carrying giganto weapons-of-death, they're carrying concealable
>> weapons: pistols, daggers, etc.  But they still don't carry anything medium-
>> sized.
>> 
>> What can be done to change this?

> In tech games, player and bad guys are either tough or have body armor of
> various sorts which render medium weapons useless. Small weapons are carried to
> be concealable and as a last resort.

	This is the situation in the above campaign. Typical police armor will
stop a 9mm or 45 ACP round, and most characters have access to roughly equal
armor protection (but the police carry M-16s, which *legal* civilian armor 
won't help against very much). Most street punks can't afford good armor,
and 4-5 rounds from a Thompson produce a nice knockback, even if they don't
penetrate the armor.

> Large weapons are also often considered unacceptable. You would not be allowed
> to carry a wicked axe into town, but a shortsword is ok.

	Very true in the above campaign; the police will pay more attention to
someone carrying a .505 elephant gun than they will someone carrying a 7.65mm
SMG.


	Usually, I notice that characters in my campaigns are themselves as:

small weapons: usually two of these, a knife and either a pistol another knife
medium weapons: usually just one, typically a broad/longsword or SMG
big weapon: usually kept at home or on the ship/horse, either a two-handed
	sword/axe (including polearms) or a high-powered rifle

Also, at least in the higher tech campaigns, characters wear the lightest armor
they have unless they are expecting trouble.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: SR: Watch Out! The Decker's got a gun!
Keywords: shadowrun, character, the library, sheen
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:42:31 GMT

dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>cdr@kpc.com (Carl Rigney) writes:

>>Actually, even better than giving a decker a gun is making him a physical
>>adept; it's especially a help for running naked in the matrix.
>>So by way of example here's Sheen, the decker Mary Kuhner created for The
>>Library. 

>Hmm. I am wondering if Magical speed increase would still work in the
>Matrix. Something says to me that it wouldn't. I find Physical Adepts
>with cyberware bothersome simply because I can't reasonably decide
>whether the person who designed it wants a physical adept or just
>wants a cheap boost to his reaction speed. 

I thought of Sheen as a physical adept.  A personal rule I have for this
type of character (I've run two of them, in different campaigns) is that
the magical reaction boost only works if the character is naked in the
Matrix; not if he uses a deck.  This is a pretty stiff limitation, since
you can't use more than the bit of software you can cram into headware
memory.

I agree that cybered adepts (and mages) are subject to abuse.  In the
Paradisio campaign we made extensive use of the idea that whatever odd
things being magical or being cybered may do to your mind and body, the
combination was much worse.  Sheen was more than a bit crazy; Duende,
the character from the other campaign (who had a fair bit of cyberware
on top of being very emphatically a physical adept) had a seriously skew
view of reality.  Most of his brothers were physically screwed up as
well (I remember the one with no skin with particular distaste....)

My experience with Shadowrun is that if you expect the rules to provide
game balance, it's going to be nervewracking.  The only thing I've seen
that leads to a playable game is a lot of restraint and good judgement
on the part of players.  Given that, I think the phys ad/decker is okay,
as long as there's no straight decker in the party.

It's worth noting, however, that under Virtual Realities this combo is
unworkable, because Magic Rating gives penalties to decking.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au (Steven Cavanagh)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Good player lines
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au
Originator: scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au

From article <uc-chan.711516185@mcl>, by uc-chan@mcl.ucsb.edu (Christina Callihan):

We were playing Ravenloft last night, and were joking amongst ourselves.
Suddenly our DM got our attention back by loudly saying "you all take
FIVE THOUSAND POINTS OF DAMAGE!!"

there was a short silence, then our fighter/mage said
"gee, do we get to save for half?"

well, it was funny at the time...


_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
                                |
Steven Cavanagh                 |        So many women-
(Cav)                           |
                                |                      -So little charisma.
scavanag@neumann.une.oz.au      |
                                |
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
From: warmongr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Krishgan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dark Supplements (TM)-
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:14:21 GMT
Organization: the Nevermore Foundation


  Concerning the topic of "Dark Supplements (TM)"....


    Oh god, thats too good, I wanna play the "Dark Toon!!!!".....  ;)

    -Keith (who is thinking -dark- thoughts for his PBEM players)
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:30:48 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Jul21.153358.89475@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> I'd would be really interested to hear from someone who could justify the
> existence of mechs in a truly realistic future. I would prefer a response that
> includes some real military hardware knowledge to one that is just an opinion.

	Well, I don't have any real military knowledge, but...

	Light mechs (10 tons and under) would be very useful recon vehicles in
rugged terrain, where tracked vehicles would have problems moving.
Theoretically, a mech could be quite agile, making those mountains and forests
a little less formidable. Granted, a VTOL could possibly do the same job, but
airborne recon would be very succeptable to radar detection. Heavy mechs are
just a waste of good parts. You don't get a better vehicle than a tank, but
it'll cost quite a bit more money.
	In the SF games I run, the only mechs you find will be light, recon
versions, disappearing shortly after battlesuits and grav recon units appear
(which also spells an end to the tracked and wheeled vehicles, for front-line
service anyway; GEV units will continue as a cheap alternative to grav). 


Brandon Cope
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Subject: Re: Genres
Organization: Rice University  
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:44:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.020816.24065@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
ins769v@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
>
>The only logical reason for humanoform mechs and single pilot theorum.
>Direct link between pilot and mech.
>        Pilots control of own body is linked to that of the mech.
>        Pilot has more experience walking than moving treads arround.
>        Computers are already there, they have to be to control interface
>        between pilot and machine.
>        Therefore since the man knows what the machine can do, and what
>        the man could do the machine is under better control.
>
Sigh....  Pseudo-technical gobbledygook.  If a human-size pilot had a
fifty-foot mech slaved to his movements, it would fall over when he tried
to walk.  The walking rhythm does NOT scale linearly with body size.
Now, if you had your mech pilots basically learn to walk again, crawling
about in their machines and slowly learning to stand and toddle (a
nursery for battle-hardened mercenaries?), THEN maybe it would work.
But wouldn't it be easier to just use a point-and-shoot movement interface
with a tank -- go THERE, never mind exactly how the treads run?
 
You've run afoul of physics and military sense.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:26:31 GMT

ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (E. Chris Garrison) writes:
: In article <1992Jul28.185143.23188@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> cassidy@cps.msu.edu.cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
: >In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
: >>Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And DONT
: >>give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail monster
: >>after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
: >>						Chris
: >
: >	The 19th century creation that I think you are refering to is
: >"Gollum" by Tolkien.  However, I beleive that there is a legendary
: >creature called a "golem" in Eastern European legends.  The name is used
: >for a creature that is created my a magician as a mindless servant.
: >
: >As always: I could be wrong.
: 
: Hate to say it, but you are.
: 
: The "19th century creation" is Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.  Her
: Frankenstein was an artificial human somehow brought to life from
: dead body parts sewn together and imbued with chemicals and so
: on.  The work is often considered the very first true science
: fiction novel, because she was extrapolating from Voltaire's (I think)
: discovery that dead tissue moves as if alive when electric current is
: applied.
: 
: The "Flesh Golem" in the AD&Dv1 rules is described just like that, and the
: picture in the Monster Manual looks remarkably like the modern movie
: Frankenstein appears.
: 
: As far as I know, your bit about the legend is correct, but "Gollum"
: from J.R.R. Tolkien has nothing to do with it, he was just a wizened,
: Ring-warped old Hobbit-kin.
: 
: Eric
: -- 
: ------
: E. Chris Garrison			      Computing Services Support Center
: ericg@ucs.indiana.edu			      Indiana University
Nope, nope nope. The origin of the creature called a Golem is from the mideast.
The are legends about a Golem created out of clay. There are some fairly
good books about it at your local library. Also, contrary to what many
people might think, Tolkien did not come up with orcs simply out of his own
imagination. In fact, other than hobbit (and there are people who have
proff that he didn't even make up that one), none of those were really
straight out of his imagination.

       _____  _____  _____         _____
      (_____    |    |____  \   /  |____           |\__/\    | | |
      ______)   |    |____   \_/   |____        <___/@ ) \    \|/
						 !!!!!\  /     X
				           ________|  | |______|_
			 	          (\_____!!!!!// ______\_) 
                                                 \____/  /     |
						 __|_|  |      |
					       ((_______|      |
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dark games
Date: 27 Jul 1992 21:15:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Dark Games?

No, they're not allowed.  I guess this gives me an excellent opportunity to
quote from TSRs guidelines handed out to writers and to companies wishing to
advertise in their publications.  To quote:

1: GOOD VERSUS EVIL
Evil shall never be portrayed in an attractive light and shall be used
only as a foe to illustrate  a moral issue.  All product shall focus struggle
of "good versus injustice and evil," casting the protaganist as an "agent of
right."

6: MONSTERS
For the purposes of this code, the term "monster" is defined to mean non-human
creatures and/or violent beasts whose primary purpose is destruction and/or
criminal activity/  As foes of the protagonists, their evil should be defeated
adn the criminal punished or destroyed.

Anyway, ther'es more to this little document, or 'code', but this should
give you an idea of what TSR wants to turn RPGs into.  Those dark genres are
right out, and for that matter anything which isn`t totally black and white
good vs. evil is out.

I think it makes RPGing rather barren as a source of entertainment.

Dave
e
ri
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: SR: Blood 'n guts games
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:02:57 GMT

cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) writes:

> The amount of bloodshed in a Shadowrun game varies highly from GM to
>GM; most of the ones I've played in have been not very combat oriented,
>so it's certainly possible. In my personal opinion, combat works best
>as a rare punctuation to normal things and as a sign that something has
>gone wrong. I suspect that encouraging everyone to have something to do
>outside of combat helps a lot, as does giving them things to do.

A big reason for this is GM's running prepackaged runs. The runs that
FASA puts out tend to be fairly combat heavy. The problem here is that
if you write the adventure, it's easier to adjust for character  
unpredicability. If the module says "No matter what the characters do,
force them into this situation. (My pet peeve), then pretty soon 
characters stop trying to find things out and mindlessly allow  the GM
to push them along the story path. If you think you can't change things,
you aren't going to try.  

> I feel that it's also important to talk to your players and explain
>just how things work in your universe, both combat related and not
>combat related -- just how far can a typical 'runner with a rep
>push a ganger (or vice versa), a Mafia soldier, a Yakuza man, things
>like that? My personal feeling is that much 'combat' will be posturing,
>near-threats, followed by one or the other side backing down then it
>becomes obvious that they can't get what they want without the
>costs being too high to pay.
> Atmosphere, not blood.

Yeah, I'd like to have a larger emphasis on character reputations. I think
that a typical Yakuza soldier or gogang member just might have heard of
one of the characters, especially the samurai types (their style relates
more to the gangers and thugs than the mage's will.) I always find it a
little silly when the thugs/grunts never recognize that "Gee, this guy
has a pretty mean rep..maybe we should try talking to him instead of
ambushing him. " 


Axly

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:13:02 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <Bs1xpz.DJD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
|> 
|> 	I have purchased HERO, and found my old copy of GURPS to compare them.
|> I was unable to come to a conclusion. My findings:
|> 
|> 	HERO's Merits			|	GURPS Merits
|>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|>    well-defined Characteristics +1	|   simplistic Attributes -1
|>    Good combat rules	+1		|   Good combat rules	+1
|>    un-scaled attribute costs	0	|   scaled attribute costs	+1
|>    reasonably cost-effecient	0	|   supplements needed -1
|>    not many supplements -1		|   lotsa cool supplements out +1
|> 
|> 	I'm using both to see which game works better in action, (long campa-
|> igns). Suggestions on what supplements to buy? (For each.)
|> 
--- 
Oh goody!  Another GURPS-Hero flamewar!!

Actually, I'd say...


  HERO's Merits                      |      GURPS Merits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
too many physical attributes -1      |   too few important attributes -1
overly complex combat versus         |   overly complex combat versus
  non-combat  -1                     |     non-combat -1
silly logarithmic scale for          |   too many point breaks in
  non-supers attributes -1           |     attribute costs -1
too few supplements -1               |   so many supplements you feel
                                     |     you HAVE to have them all -1

I have always been bothered by Hero's 27 (or whatever) attributes for
physical things and 2 (INT and EGO, right?  It's been a while...) for mental.
OK, so most comic book heroes are big on bashing things around and short on
brains.  But still...

As anyone who has followed this newsgroup knows EVERYONE thinks that IQ
and DX play too important a role over ST and HT in GURPS and it either needs
(your pick) new skill rules, more attributes, different attribute costs,
a kitchen sink, skill rules requiring a PhD in Math to understand, more rules,
even more attributes, less general skills, more general skills, no defaulting,
different defaulting, and more rules about kitchen sinks.

Why does everyone love games (exaggeration warning) that
have 200 page rule books 150 pages of which are detailed combat rules and 
5 pages of which are vague social interaction rules?  Are everyone's games
really that dominated by combat?

As for GURPS having too many supplements, I stood at the SJG booth at
GenCon last year trying to convince some dorky AD&Der that to play GURPS
in a fantasy setting all you needed was Basic and maybe
GURPS: Magic.  She was just sure she JUST HAD to have Fantasy, Beastiary,
Fantasy Bestiary, Magic Items, and who knows what else too and that was way 
too expensive.

Sigh.

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dangerous Journeys -- Mythus is out
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:53:23 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <loren.164.0@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
>So Mythus, Gary Gygax's new game, is out.
>Comments? Additions? Controversy?
>Loren

Being a stout non-fan of EGG I haven't bought this, but I did spend a few
minutes looking at in in the store. The back cover REALLY turned me off
(basically, its hyping up a skill based game without character classes as if
this is an incredibly new concept). Still, the fact that it is being over
hyped is not in itself a reason to condemn a game.

Looking through the book, I found the physical layout extremely offputting.
Basically, in an attempt to make the charts look archaic and "cool" the print
job was quite messy and blurry, and I sometimes found it hard to read the
charts.  If I was trying to look things up in the charts it would get to me
quite quickly (note, this is from a sample set of one book and from a person
who wears glasses and who should probably renew his glasses prescription
soon).

Looking at the system for a few minutes I saw nothing different or innovative
leaping out at me. There seemed to be pages and pages of standard magic
spells, a normal skill list, etc. While I'd be willing to be convinced
otherwise it seemed to be an adequate game of little or no distinction that
is being overly hyped.
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:48:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

joshua writes:

> 	HERO's Merits			|	GURPS Merits
>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    well-defined Characteristics +1	|   simplistic Attributes -1
>    Good combat rules	+1		|   Good combat rules	+1
>    un-scaled attribute costs	0	|   scaled attribute costs	+1
>    reasonably cost-effecient	0	|   supplements needed -1
>    not many supplements -1		|   lotsa cool supplements out +1

A few things: GURPS scaled attribute costs are only appropriate in human
normal type games, where the law of diminishing returns is in effect.  On
a simple play-balance basis, it's not so important, and not really a big
issue in the high-fantasy and superhero games.  Also, due to the fact that
each effect is scaled, not the final result, it just becomes a point-
cruncher's wonderland as players discover buying a little bit of everything
instead of lots of one.  For example, if you want to build a 'people person'
the best way to go about it is to get the +1 level of everything.  You final
result, the reaction bonus, is *not* scaled.  Therefore, this seeming 
strength of GURPS can be pretty easily loused up anyway.

At the same time, I'd not give 'simplistic Attributes' a -1 for GURPS.
I think they need a little development, but I'd still rate it at -0.

As for supplements, don't forget:

Hero: clearly lays out basic mechanics, allowing you to make your own
      supplement  +1

I find this important, as a Hero player/GM I find no problem with not having
lots of supplements.  In fact, we play Hero Startrek, Hero cinematic spies,
and Hero monster-stompers.  Further, we laid down the ideas behind Hero
cyberpunk and Hero fantasy before ever seeing those supplements.  (Cyberhero
is due soon.)

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mrmach@mtu.edu (MARK R. MACH)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:04:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu>, cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
> Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And DONT
> give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail monster
> after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
> 						Chris

    Well, whenever you deal in Fantasy, you bypass reality.  Variations on 
Frankenstein would be a mute point, then.  But if you really don't want to 
have anything to do with 'Frankenstein', try something like 'artificial person'
or 'the resurrected man'.  Or, try something different altogether -- let the 
PC's in your game name it -- after all, if it is a new monster to them, why would
it have previously ever been named?

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mark R. Mach <mrmach@mtu.edu>, Technical Consultant, CCLI, MTU

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:2754 rec.games.frp:24201
From: gobeski8618@iscsvax.uni.edu (Steve 'Gobes' Gobeski)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
Subject: ArsM:  Twilight question
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:32:21 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I have a question about an apparent contradiction in the 3d Edition Ars Magica
as regards Twilight (p. 356).  "Magi do not gain Twilight Points until they
begin using a longevity potion..." and "Twilight points also come from studying
the Art of Vim...".  My question is that, e.g. my character, if you have a Vim
score of 5 (one Twilight) but have not taken any longevity potions, do you have
Twilight points?

Twilight was added since 2d edition, and although specific individual's
interpretations are nice, what I'm really hoping for is if some of the 'netting
authors of the 3d edition (Mr. Appel, and others) could explain this, as they
are more likely to have an idea what Twilight is supposed to represent, &c.

--  Steve 'Gobes' Gobeski // GOBESKI8618@iscsvax.uni.edu