HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mxr@neptune.dsc.com (Max "Thunder Snooze" Rible)
Subject: Re: The Benedictine Problem
Organization: Digital Sound Corporation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:22:14 GMT

kcrook@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Prince Of Amber) writes:

>How does this scenario strike you?

I think you're forgetting something.

>Benedict pursues Corwin through shadow, Hell-riding as they go, indeed
>Corwin is a sneaky bastard (as can be expected) and gives Benedict a hard
>time, but when Corwin stopped, well...

>Benedict:  Hmm... where's that Bow I had *grin, shadow shift*, Ah, Yes.
>           There it is.

>Do you think Corwin would have been screwed?  I do.  He can try to
>Yadomejutsu all day, and I bet he'd look like a pin cushion all the
>same.  Remember, this is Benedict we're talking about.

How does Benedict draw the bow?  With his teeth?  He only had one arm
at the time.  Also, in order to shift somewhere to pick up a bow, it
should make it more difficult for him to follow Corwin.  (Never mind
the fact that he was in a killing rage.  Does the Amber game specify
that Benedict is always calm, cool, and collected?  His character
seemed quite consistent in the books.)
/-------------v-----------------------v---------------------------------------\
| Max Rible   | mxr@dsc.com           | "Powerful big rats, gentlemen."       |
|             | rible@vorpal.ucsb.edu |                         - Neil Gaiman |
\-------------^-----------------------^---------------------------------------/
--
From: David_Braun@panam.wimsey.bc.ca (David Braun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: What *is* "Role-Playing"
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:26:28 GMT
Organization: Commodore Computer Club / PaNorAmA

In a message dated Fri 14 Aug 92  9:33, Ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.e
wrote:

 R> I think at least half of the argument between diceless and dice is
 R> we're all using different interpretations of the term "role-playing,"
as
 R> opposed (as some say) to "story telling" and "acting."

[ Interesting theory omitted ]

 R> I like to think that RPGs have finally come full circle with Amber's
 R> diceless (un)system. But that's my opinion.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  I probably shouldn't be replying to this but (at risk of starting another
flamefest complete with name calling and all) but IMIABO (In My Ignorant,
Arrogant & Biased Opinion) you are wrong.  Completely out in left field on
this one.

  I don't believe that picking up a set of dice in my roleplaying game
makes me any less of a roleplayer than somebody who chooses NOT to pick up
a set of dice in their roleplaying game.

  Everybody has their own interpretation roleplaying and each
interpretation is right and wrong.  To you my interpretation will be wrong.
To me your interpretation will be wrong.  I'm sure if this thread picks up
any steam (please God no!) somebody else will accuse us BOTH of being
wrong, and will quote Old Testament references to back up his point.

  If you put 10 roleplayers into a room and ask them what _true_
roleplaying is they will emerge with 11 opinions because one will have
changed his mind at least once.  Each will, in his own mind, be right...
and who am I to argue?

  This whole roleplaying subject has taken on the air of religeon;
everybody has their own interpretation of what true roleplaying is and
everything else is heresy.

  In short, when I say that your interpretation of roleplaying is wrong, I
really mean that it is right - for you.  (Sort of like when Michale Jackson
sings "I'm bad" when he really means "Good"...).  My interpretation of
roleplaying is right - for me.  You have fun roleplaying your way.  I have
fun roleplaying my way.  We both do it wrong.


-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

   //    - I thought I was wrong once but I could be mistaken -
 \X/ db  - david_braun@panam.wimsey.bc.ca (UseNet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: bingcros@leland.Stanford.EDU (Richard Crosby)
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Keywords: GURPS Attribute SPRUG
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:06:23 GMT

In article <3290@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
(Robert J. Hall) writes:
(Bob describes a system for racial attributes that penalizes a
character point-wise for choosing an attribute below average for the
race - the farther below average, the bigger the penalty.  Picking an
attribute at or above racial average results in a net points benefit.)

I would like to say that this is a good effort to fix something that I
feel is in direct opposition to what GURPS says points are supposed to
represent:  character balance.

I do feel that approaches like this are a little off of the target,
though, because it tries to deal with characters as the embodiment of
a race rather than as distinct individuals.  Individuals can vary
significantly from the norm, and I can see no reason to have some sort
of points penalty/bonus to try to encourage characters to conform to
the "averages."  A ST 8 Dwarf or a ST 17 Dwarf is just as valid as a
ST 12 Dwarf when considering individual characters.  The points need
to stick religiously to their stated purpose of ensuring character
balance.  ST 17 is of equal use to Dwarf, Human, or Lizard Man, and
the points should reflect it.

Rich
From: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Keywords: diceless, roleplay
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)


  Have you played AMBER yet? I have. It's one of the most interesting
role-playing experiences I've had.

  The point about a diceless system is that it implicitly excludes "roll
players", which is not so bad a thing... Either you role-play, or you
don't play at all. Situation resolution is not emphasized. Rather, it is
a game on intense interaction, which is exactly what it should be, given
Zelazny's work.

  Of course, it could not work for every universe, every campaign, every
player.

  But I, for one, love it.

						Redwing.
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0.
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:11:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <BsIMqH.9xH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>One of the ideas I've been toying with it to take the atmosphere of 
>Cyberpunk and graft it onto SRun mechanics. Surgically remove all metahumans
>and magic. Has anyone tried this? I think it just might work, since 
>Srun has a decent system when dealing with tech stuff.

Is it just me, or does this seem like an utter waste of time?

This should prolly go on rgf.advocacy, but I consider the Shadowrun game 
mechanics to be some of the worst in the business. I could understand using
the Shadowrun background with some other system's game mechanics (the 
background, while derivitive, has it's moments), but why anyone would want to
use the SR game mechanics with a different background is completely beyond me.

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board
From: droe@cs.tcd.ie (David Roe)
Subject: Re: Strategic Fantasy Battle Simulator
Keywords: Strategy, Fantasy
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin (Computer Science)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:59:27 GMT

In article <Bt79Dz.CEu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>There's a game based on RuneQuest's "Glorantha" world called "Dragon Pass" that
>fits your bill to a T.  It was origionally called "White Bear, Red Moon".  I
>_think_ that it's an Avalon Hill product now, but don't know for sure (it's in
>one of those bookcase game boxes, anyhow).
>
>Anyway, it's a strategic battle game, but with a raftload of "unit flavor",
>magic, nifty devices, odd alliances, etc.
>

	Yes, AH are currently publishing it.  I believe that their
agreement with Mr. Stafford requires them to keep it in print in order
to hold on to the licencing agreement). It is a fabulous game, with a
magic element, diplomacy, highly varied units and a marvelously detailed
background. Even if you've never heard of Runequest or the Gloranthan
world, you cannot fail to be captivated by the depth of the historical
detail included. The only problem is that it suffers from AH's dreadful
rules writing, which can require several readings in order to get the
simplest piece of information. In any case, I heartily reccdomend it.

	Dave Roe
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Music & Roleplaying
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:24:10 GMT
	<65743@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1992Aug12.081329.20919@eua.ericsson.se>
	<1992Aug12.172043.3929@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 12 Aug 92 17:20:43 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 ]

>>>>> "AAS" == Ami A. Silberman <silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu> writes:

AAS> For Cyberpunk genre games - (mostly just band names, * for especially
AAS> apropos)
AAS> Hawkwind

Try some Blue Oyster Cult if you're looking for Moorcock-inspired stuff;
Veteran of the Psychic Wars, Black Blade, The Great Sun Jester; these I can
remember.

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!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.
From: J.P.Brannan <J.P.Brannan@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re Diceless or Senseless?
Nntp-Posting-User: jpb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d1
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:18:44 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 03:10:40 GMT

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
> In other words, they found the guilty party: the minion.  However,
> their observations allowed me to realize that there was a deeper plot.
> I then improvise the new plot.

dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
> That's "changing reality".  If the perp was working for someone else,
> that should have been noted beforehand.  If the players convince themselves
> that he was, well, they can look all they like but they're not going to find
> any proof....

smith@ctron.com writes:
> "Changing reality" - so what?  This is not any sort of objective reality in
> the first place.  I made it up and I can change it.  If it's fun and playable,
> my players are happy and come back for more.  If it isn't, it's bad GMing,
> pure and simple, and we'll all head about it when people get on the net and
> complain about the GM.

I had a player once who believed that every detail had to be planned out in
advance.  On entering a village and going to a dwelling-place, where there
were children playing, she asked the names of the children.  So I `looked
them up' in my folder.  Actually, I turned to a list of random names.

The question is whether one consders the world the GM describes to be
complete at the start of the game, or whether the GM is still in the process
of creating it.  For me as a GM, the latter is always true.  For Gail (who
shall remain anonymous) it was the former.

`Changing Reality' can only be done if Reality is fix'd.

But the GM is an illusionist, a tale-spinner, a weaver of dreams, not a
fusty historian meticulously describing the past through a dusty veil of
dry and tortured footnotes.  Sorry, got carried away there.
The point is that there's no Reality to change - in the eyes of the players -
until the GM has described it.

Lee

-- 
Liam Quin, lee@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, 416 239-4801; the barefoot programmer
  lq-text (Unix text retrieval package) mailing list: lq-text-request@sq.com
  latest released version: 1.10; ftp: ftp.cs.toronto.edu in directory: pub
  If Adultery is for Adults, is Juvenal for Juveniles?
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:37:15 GMT

In article <Bt3Dt6.BEL@acsu.buffalo.edu> swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
|As near as I can tell, the difference is entirely temporal.  This is
|almost a matter of metaphysics.  You decided 27 hours before the
|characters entered the room, that there was a key under the
|floorboards.  I decided it 30 seconds before they started searching
|the room.  Maybe I didn't even "create" the room until they started
|sneaking around inside the manor house of an NPC who hadn't existed
|until 20 minutes after we started playing.  :-)  You say that your
|way has more rewards, (at a psychological level, maybe?).  I say
|it all depends on your perspective.  Suppose you didn't know (or
|better yet, didn't care) that I was making this up at the moment,
|instead of days in advance?  Either way, it's "just something that
|Steve made up", why is it more rewarding that I made it up days
|ago instead of right now?  Why are you any "smarter" for looking under
|the floorboards when the room was made up "in advance"?
|
	I would quit instantly if I found out that a GM was putting clues in
front of me as I was searching.  It means that he doesn't know the answer to
the whatever mystery we're investigating, and that completely destroys any
possible sense of accomplishment you could feel from solving it.  I've had
this happen to me in the past, and I HATE it.

	Improvisation is a necessary evil, as far as I'm concerned.  I've had
to do it, of course; the players have to be given their head and that means
they're not going to stick to your prepared material all the time.  But I
never start a scenario without having answered all of the questions I've
raised *and* being certain that the clues to those answers are all in place.


dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't
you learned; if it's not happenning to me it's not important?" -Murphy Brown
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS Rewrite
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:48:46 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <1992Aug17.171441.9584@ncar.ucar.edu>, urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS)) writes:
>Perhaps one could still use the *quick* contest combat rules, allowing the
>defender to roll vs. normal weapon skill for a parry, normal DX/Acrobatics
>for a dodge, and normal shield skill for a block. *If* the blow gets
>through, then re-test the attack skill roll vs 2*PD of the armor, to see if the
>armor glanced the blow.
>
>As an example: fighter A and B engage in combat, both wearing chain on the
>torso. Fighter A has a 16 Weapon skill, Figter B a 13. A attacks B, and rolls
>a 9; success by 7. B attempts a parry of 13 and rolls an 8; success, but not
>as good as A, ergo A's blow gets past the parry. Now since B is wearing chain
>(let's assume a cutting blow), it has a PD of 3. Double the PD to 6 and attempt
>to roll under it by more than the attack succeeded by (7). You may already
>notice that this cannot be done. *I* would allow a critical success to indicate
>a successful defense roll here. Fighter B rolls a 5; the blow lands. Roll for
>damage as normal.

This makes PD worthless against a good fighter, which is far from the case in
the normal system.  A better idea, IMHO, would be to rule that the blow glances
off the armor if the defender MAKES the roll against 2*PD instead of making it
a contest.  This allows PD for plate armor to have a fair effect (it'll still
bounce about 25% of the blows), but unfortunately lesser armors will have
essentially NO effect.  Perhaps a roll against PD+4 instead of 2*PD?

i
n
e
w
s

f
o
d
d
e
r


-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.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
From: dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Mailing Lists/Digests
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:28:56 GMT
Organization: BBS

Will the current rec.games.frp moderator (Whomever took over Loren's job),
please post the information regarding Mailing Lists and Digests here.  It's
been just about a month now.

dlaird@terapin.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Speaking of ambushes II
From: bkreed@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:19:35 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <1992Aug20.164758.17510@nmsu.edu>, oroboros@acca.nmsu.edu (The Wyrm Ouroboros) writes:
> Deep Six writes:
>>
>>I've suggested a mix, where the PCs use both close range and distant 
>>range weapons to ambush, but they can't agree on which is more important.
>>I'm not necassarily looking for a discussion on the merits of close
>>range or long range combat, I'm more looking for examples from other 
>>campaigns of ambushes that worked well, backfired, etc., from both players
>>and GMs.
> 
> I could not help but reply to this one -- simply because the most effective
> ambush with a group like this is so obvious.
> 
> Displayed thusly:
> 
>           CoverCoverCoverCover |  R  | CoverCoverCoverCover
>               Mid-Range Party  |  O  |  Mid-Range Party
>                CoverCoverCover |  A  | CoverCoverCover
>                  Short Ranger  |  D  |  Short Ranger
>                     CoverCover |     | CoverCover
>                                |     |
>                      Targets ---->X  |
>                                |     |
>                     CoverCover |     | CoverCover
>                  Short Ranger  |  R  |  Short Ranger
>                CoverCoverCover |  O  | CoverCoverCover
>               Mid-Range Party  |  A  |  Mid-Range Party
>           CoverCoverCoverCover |  D  | CoverCoverCoverCover
> 			  Long-Range Party
> 				  |
> 				  |
> 				  V
> 
> The long-ranger opens fire first; when the first target falls, everybody else
> can open up.  Gives everybody a piece of the action.
> 
> Ouroboros
> The Wyrm of the .Net
-- 
Don't try this at home.  It can be very hazardous to your health.
Let's look at this:

Team A: Upper left
Team B: Upper Right
Team C: Lower left
Team D: Lower right.

Say you are team A.  Target comes along not knowing that death lies
ahead.  He moves right into your sights.  You open up.  So do teams B,
C and D.  Everything is hunky dory...that is until some idiot in team
C hoses up and misses.  The round strikes you and you are dead.  Kind
of messes up your whole day, unless it is a Friday, when it messes up
your whole weekend.

Ouroboros is right though.  Converging fields of fire can make
mincemeat out of a target.   The best idea, IMO, is to place two teams
on the same side of the road.  (Teams A and C or B and D, if you will.
You get the advantages of the converging fields of fire and don't have
to worry about friendly fire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are very few personal problems  |	Ghostrider@f120.n280.z1.fidonet.org
that cannot be solved by suitable     |      bkreed@oread.cc.ukans.ed
Aplications of plastic explosives.    |            EGARC/BKREED
   ---Anonymous                       |          Bryan Kennedy Reed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: HERO's cheesy $ flow cost...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:20:12 GMT

In article <Bt90sn.Krw@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>	Why does HERO allow someone to be fabulously wealthy for 20 cp, yet
>make an AK-47 cost 5 points as a power? If you were fabulously wealthy, you cou
>could just buy an AK-47, hell, buy ten. I think that the cp for being rich are
>incongrous with the aforemntioned AK-47 price. Or vice versa. Can someone put
>forth a clear answer on which price to use and how to adapt the other one?
>
>	HERO is riddled with problems, but is the best I have seen so far...
>
>								-jsalter

The original genre for all the HERO stuff was 4-color comics, where characters
with fabulous wealth don't seem to use it.  Bruce Wayne, playboy millionaire,
doesn't seem to bother buying a pistol, just a Batmobile.  &c.

HERO enforces this by requiring heros to pay points for stuff they buy, rather
than just money.  So to buy an AK-47 would cost five points.  In a 4-color
campaign, money means nothing -- ignore it.

In a more realistic universe, you don't pay points for equipment, just money.

So, in short, ignore the one that doesn't feel right.  The rules are for two
different genres.

	- kitten


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Strategic Fantasy Battle Simulator
Keywords: Strategy, Fantasy
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:16:20 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


 > There's a game based on RuneQuest's "Glorantha" world called
 > "Dragon Pass" that fits your bill to a T. It was origionally called
 > "White Bear, Red Moon".  I _think_ that it's an Avalon Hill product
 > now, but don't know for sure (it's in one of those bookcase game
 > boxes, anyhow).
 >
 > Anyway, it's a strategic battle game, but with a raftload of "unit
 > flavor", magic, nifty devices, odd alliances, etc.
 >
 >         Alec

Okay, thanks! I'd heard of the game, although I somehow always thought
it was a FRPG in the strictest sense.

Er, now that I think about it, I guess I didn't define well enough what I
was looking for in the battle simulation department. Something like one of
the old Prestags games from SPI with the inclusion of various humanoids and
the magical accutrements would be good. The units would represent entire
formations from the miniatures games. (~100-500 creatures.) The tactical
battles would be fought out on an abstracted terrain map whenever the armies
encountered each other on the strategic scale. Is Dragon Pass anything like
this?              
-- 
 Bob Hall,                 | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
 Workstation Peripheral    | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
 Boeing Computer Services  |                                     -Groucho Marx