HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS))
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.222926.28203@cco.caltech.edu> trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip) writes:
%Disclaimer: I play Hero because it's the least flawed game on the market
%for what I want it for, which is an objective, consistent way of
%describing things in the campaign (characters, weapons, long falls,
%whatever). I do think the point system/character creation needs some
%fixing up, but it's not yet annoying enough for me to do something about
%it. When it is, I'll fix it.

Is'nt Hero about to go into 4th Edition, or some such? Just curious, and 
perhaps a bit tired of tweaking GURPS. What ever...




--
Art Urban 					       urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu
===============================================================================
 "What's Next? Chasing bunnies on a motorbike until their hearts explode? -Crow
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Music & Roleplaying
Organization: Marriott Library, University of Utah
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:45:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.084152.1755@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre) writes:

>Has anyone tried to use music and/or sounds during a roleplaying session?
>Did it enhance the atmosphere of the game, or was it just annoying when the GM
>was busy trying to locate the correct sound on a tape?

>What kind of music did you use? The "Campaign & Catacombs Guide" gives some
>titles of classical music (Wagner etc...). Anyone tried these out?

This is about to become a bone of contention with my DM. He used to play 
cool stuff like Dead Can Dance, Enigma, Cocteau Twins, etc. Ever since he 
went to a G. Dead concert, all we have listened to is the Dead, and other 
country (yes other country) like Michelle Shocked, and Syd Straw. I'm 
getting mighty sick of it. Unfortunately it's his house, and his stereo.

Hurm.


Jeff Jonsson
Marriott Library System Support, University of Utah.
==============================================================================
--"It's the sound of the secret--  jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
-- machinery at the center of  --  jjonsson@utahlib.bitnet
-- the world." -Cliff Steele   --  "You talkin' to me?"
From: Paul James <prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Ala genre....
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:45:02 GMT
Originator: prj91@spenser

In <1992Aug17.114837.29692@ugle.unit.no> toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen) writes:

>In article <dlaird.15uk@terapin.com> dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird) writes:
>>
>	- A Discworld sourcebook (OK, so this is obvious and will never be
>done, but anyway...)

I remember seeing a discworld scenario in an old issue of Gamesmaster
mag.

>- Tor Wilhelmsen
>-- 
>"I'm a Derek, and Dereks don't run!" - Derek in 'Bad Taste'
>toriver@pvv.unit.no
>Standard disclaimer should apply to this, I guess...
>"Reality is a poor escapism for people who cannot handle roleplaying" - Me
================================================================================
Paul James                                  ____________________
prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk                      /  __________________O
kraken@mail.soton.ac.uk                   /  /|________________
                                         /  /_/________________O
"Beware the many tentacled one."        /_____________________
                                       |______________________O
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Music & Roleplaying
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:19:51 GMT

I find that for high-tech/science fiction combat scenes, the police
station scene from The Terminator and the reactor room scene from Aliens
do wonders for the atmosphere.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: v124pz9t@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (David Cheng, using Mark S Cheng's acct)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Pendragon
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.151450.4819@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, littlefield@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes...
> 
>	I've been kind of out of the rpg scene for a while, but I'd like to
>know the status on the rpg Pendragon. Is it still in print? If so, how much
>does it go for these days, and where could one pick up a copy?
> 
>	Thanks in advance for any info.
> 
>--Kevin
> 
>littlefield@binah.cc.brandeis.edu

Pendragon is alive and well these days.  I'm not sure what it retails
for ( $24 ?).  The best part is that Chaosium is giving it more
product support, ie more emphasis on the production schedule.

I would think that any semi-decent game store could order it for you,
if they're not carrying it outright.  Mail order is convenient too
(life in the US!).

-David Cheng
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: josecuer@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Aaron Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SRun: Mag 3 Cyber Eyes in Combat
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:05:49 GMT
Organization: World Works and Welfare Assosciation, Purdue branch

If the Mag 3 eyes do not function as a scope of the same power does, then what
over all good are they?  
Well, maybe that's a bit harsh, but I have always considered the mag eyes to
work as scopes.  If you *really* think that the mag eyes unbalance the game then don't just rule that they don't work that way, there is no logic in that.
Make the characters make the availability rolls and the negotiation rolls and just end up jacking the price or availibility up so high that the player doesn't want to go through the trouble.
Subtle manipulation of players works a lot better than argument and rairoading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|| Aaron Smith  Charter Member, Shampoo International Fanclub              ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|| josecuer@sage.cc.purdue.edu|| "The sexes will both be equal with"       ||
||----------------------------|| "their erogenous zones blown sky high!"   ||
|| Shampoo Fans Unite!!!      ||          ---Penguin, Batman Returns       ||
||----------------------------||-------------------------------------------||
|| Welcome to Prime Time, bitch!   ---Freddy Krueger                       ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||The opinions stated above are nobody's but mine, though I won't admit it.||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Carmina Burana : was Re: Music & Roleplaying
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:23:29 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <4738@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>
>	On the subject of music for RPGs...
>
>	I've often seen the Orff piece "Carmina Burana" mentioned. I've 
>sometimes seen people claim that it was the actual music used in the
>_Conan_ movies.

I don't know about Conan but his music IS used extensively in Excalibur.
My apologies if thousands others have posted this, none of the postings have
reached here yet.
From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SRun: Mag 3 Cyber Eyes in Combat
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:11:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ward1.713938304

dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>If you can see the target better, like as if it were in front of you, it's
>easier to hit. I'd say a full sized image of the person vice the reduced 
>size you see at a large distance just might be helpful.

Not -3 to target number helpful. Maybe -1.

>Axly

Wordman
From: covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SRun: Firearms range (was Mag 3 Cyber Eyes in Combat
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:09:42 GMT
	<Bsy79v.4ML@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <2304@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science

In article <2304@tymix.Tymnet.COM> keller@shera.Tymnet.COM (Pamela K. Keller) writes:

   The part that bothers me from the original post was an implication that the 
   person with Vis Mag 3 was firing a SMG while running and was expecting
   to have short range accuracy.  If the short range accuracy is produced by
   makeing the target easier to see, what happens to everything else in the
   field of vision?  How fast does the mind adjust to this change in visual
   perception?  Can you use this kind of targeting and run at the same time?

If the visual magnification is integrated properly with the rest
of the visual system, my guess would be yes.  After all, you can run
while taking quick looks at things around you which are at different
distances from you-- your eyes focus on whatever particular thing
you're looking at at a given instant, and everything else is just a
low-resolution blur anyhow.

If "Vis Mag 3" just gives an ultra-enhanced ability to focus clearly
on objects at a distance, it would certainly work while running.  If
it actually increases the proportion of the visual image that the 
target takes up... it still would probably work, assuming a minimum of
training/practice on the samurai's part.  Remember that standard
street samurai headware and hardware have tremendously sophisticated
abilities to process special information about designated areas of the
environment; a standard trick is raking automatic fire across
friendly targets without hitting them.  One way to handle the Mag 
interface would be to "zoom" on the target whenever the user focuses
on the designated target, and "unzoom" (?) back to normal
magnification to look at anything else (perhaps this is what Axly was
saying?).
--
David Covin                           covin@despair.uchicago.edu
From: batemanc@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Mad Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:24:19 GMT

darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III) writes:

>In <3095@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:

>>Where do you guys get your % of improv?

[Amusing discussion of %ages deleted]

>This is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Don't forget, if you prepare nothing, you spend 0% of your time on 
preparation and 100% of your time on improvisation, and you use 
100% of your improvisation and 0% of your preparation.

Similarly, if you prepare 100% of what you need, you spend 100% of your
time on preparation and 0% of your time on improvisation, for which you
get to use 100% of what you prepared and 0% of what you improvised.

It follows, therefore, that the amount you use of imp/prep is directly
proportional to how much you prepare, so if you prepare 50% and 
improvise 50%, you use 50% of your prep and 50% of your imp making the
game 25% improvisation and 25% preparation. The other 50% is down to pizza,
alcohol and divine intervention.

The moral of this story is that you are better off using pure prep or pure
imp and the moral of the moral is that the logic of this post is so 
demented you've just wasted two minutes of your life reading it.

Ishkabibble.

Mad Chris.
From: wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:22:30 GMT
	<1992Aug14.215219.15109@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

This discussion is another illustration of one central problem with GURPS.

	As you may know, GURPS has TWO different point-system philosophies,
which, IMO, clash continuously throughout.
	The first philosophy is that of charging for difficulty. ie- it takes
less effort to learn to swim than to learn nuclear physics, so it costs
less to have swimming than physics.
	The second is 'utility', which is the basis of games like Champions.
Things which are more useful cost more points. This is where
disadvantages and advantages come into play, as well as attributes.

	Now, there is one central problem with utility based point balancing,
which is the reason I stopped playing GURPS (it's one of my favorite
systems out there, next to Ars Magica).
	The problem is that utility is a VARIABLE. To truly do utility right,
you must be able to predict the entire future usefullness of a trait,
otherwise the player will have an unfair (dis)advantage.

	So, the problem with this discussion is whether attributes should be
based on rarity (ie- for a given race, which attributes are 'easier' and
'harder' to get), or on utility (how useful are the attributes)

	In my opinion, people running GURPS should decide which method they
want. In terms of utility, attributes should be adjusted in terms of
which are more useful (perhaps, which have more skills, etc). Skill
difficulties should be based on how useful the skill is, not how
difficult it is to learn. Learning time should be dropped. Then you get
the joy of trying to reason out what really is more useful than the
others. :) (IMO, this is impossible to do)
	Or, do things based on difficulty. With this method, point balance is
less important. Attribute costs should be adjusted by race. The total
attribute cost should not exceed a certain maximum, but can be as low as
desired (no advantage is gained by going very low). Or, perhaps, a
random attribute total could be decided. Ads/disads should be decided
on. Perhaps 'talent' type ads/disads could, again, have some max number.
Skills would be left alone. Social ads/disads would be dropped (it's
only background)

Comments?

-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
Subject: Re: Bass Ackwards GURPS Attribute Modifier Method
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:31:23 GMT

laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:

[A very long article with many levels of >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>,
which seems to boil down to:]

Laird: Utility point systems are impossible because utility is
       situational. Point values have to be recalculated every session
       because different skills will be useful in each session.

What a fine straw man argument you have there. Try considering more
than fifteen seconds at a time, why don't you? In, eg, a cyberpunk
campaign, you can reasonably expect Surveillance to be useful at least
one session out of two, while Identify Obscure Asian Beetles might come
up once during the campaign. I don't know about you, but I have no
trouble telling which is going to be more useful to the possessor.
Sure, they may end up stuck in an obscure part of Asia, and have their
lives saved by the entomologist, but this hardly means that the
entomologist is the most useful character because of it.

Admittedly, if the GM has no clue where the campaign is going, he won't
be able to make more than very coarse distinctions, but if that's the
case you have much worse problems. Besides, you don't *need* more than
very coarse assessments, unless you're one of those hardcore types who
always uses Phoenix Command because no other system handles a called
shot to the middle phalange on the left hand with a .17/.44 round from
31 degress elevation in medium fog quite properly.

Laird: GURPS measures development, so GURPS characters are equally
       developed, so it's fair.

Development of *what*? If you mean experience & training, that's fine,
but how do you fit stats, advantages, disadvantages, superpowers, and
gifts from above into it?

And how is this 'fair'? I can't see any other measure of 'fairness' than
everyone's character having equally much to do.

Trip				|   Everybody's playing the game
President, ECNG			|   But nobody's rules are the same
(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)	|   Nobody's on nobody's side
				|			-_Chess_
From: gt9405b@prism.gatech.EDU (Lord Goodgulf the Ma-a-a-agical Wizard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:24:56 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BsusBD.Eys@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
  
>Benedict was hunting him down to kill him. He finds him. "Gee, Corwin 
>doesn't look like he's going anywhere. I'll go kill him. Hmm..he doesn't
>appear to be moving like one would expect an adversary attempting to
>save his life would. Since I am the universe's best strategist, I think
>I'll stop and observe the situation before blustering in like a big
>old bull. " 
       Corwin had been running for a while.  He finally stopped (perchance
finally deciding he couldn't get away?) and tried to talk his way out of it.
What's so tactically odd about this?  I'd try to talk my way out of it too,
and that's a little hard to do while you're running away as fast as you can
(and forcing Benedict to do the same).

> Instead, Zelazny has him blunder into the trap. Why? Plot considerations
>are the reason.  If Benedict stops, assesses (sp?) the situation,
>and then waits for Corwin to come to him since Corwin can't
>get away from him without coming away from whatever sort of trap 
>there is (and yes, there are a great number of traps one might stand
>next to that Benedict would be aware of..caltrops for one), then Corwin
>dies. End of series. Not too satisfying to our average SciFi reader.
        Why should Corwin come to Benedict?  He has absolutely no reason
to.  They can both wait there until one of them starves to death if they
very well like (and I bet it wouldn't be Corwin).  That hardly helps
Benedict out.  And not all traps are the type one stands next to.  Just
because you're fairly certain he must have something in mind (he is Corwin
after all) doesn't mean it's terrain.  Now he should have noticed when
Corwin jumps over the grass, but that's execution, not the idea......

>This neat trick isn't going to cut it if you are trying to be fair to 
>both players. You have to take Benedict's skill at warfare into account
>and tell him "Hmm. Corwin's behavior isn't what you would normally expect
>from an opponent in his situation." The character would notice that even
>if the player didn't.
     Sure it will.  You know he's got a trick up his sleeve.  Great.  What
is it?  Amberites can come up with things far more devious than terrain.  And
were you really expecting him not to be ready to do something?  And who knows,
maybe Benedict would normally have beat him, but Corwin just got a lucky
break.  :)
                               Lord Goodgulf the Wizard



-- 
Lynn Richard Akers
"Before I became Vice President, I couldn't even spell potatoe-head.  Now I are
 one."      - Things Quayle never said......but could have 
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt9405b          Internet: gt9405b@prism.gatech.edu
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: GURPS Rewrite
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:06:35 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <ELK.92Aug14160839@cblpo.att.com> elk@cblpo.att.com (elk) writes:
> > the only suggestion that GURPS makes is to resolve hitting as a quick
> > contest between attack skill and defense roll - which pretty much makes
> > defenses obselete, and all-out attacks the 'in' choice.
>
>So, we went to the quick contest method of resolving combats.
>
>Defense is *NOT* obsolete.  It is absolutely essential with this
>method.  What we've discovered (and we stuck with quick contest by the
>way) was that if you want to live through combats, you need GOOD
>armour (and plenty of it) and you need those defense skills to be way
>up there.  
>
>All-out attack is useful if you think your opponent can't hit you, or
>if they can't get enough damage through your armour (like someone
>using a rapier on a guy in plate mail).  But, if your all-out attack
>doesn't just put the other guy on his butt THIS round, then you have
>to face an attack on nothing but PD next round.  You will get hit.
>Plain and simple.

	Eh? How much armor were you guys wearing? 

	Let's say you are Skill 15, PD 6, and facing a Skill 15 opponent. 
Your Parry is 13, so by quick contest method your chances of successfully 
defending is less than 50%. Let's say your opponent will take 'N' blows 
to take out, 'N' greater than 1. If you all-out attack, you will take N/2 
blows before your opponent drops. If you normal attack, you will take 
N minus (N times defense probability) = more than N/2. 

	If defense rolls are greater than attack rolls, then it is worth 
doing step-and-attack rather than all-out attack. In the games I was in, 
at least, this was not true, and was highly difficult to say the least. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Remember: a running man may slit a thousand
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | throats in a single night." 
Columbia University         |                           - Klingon proverb
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: sorflet@bnr.ca (Winston Sorfleet)
Subject: Re: Gamma World
Reply-To: sorflet@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:10:00 GMT

In article <HK2NB8ZR@cc.swarthmore.edu>, ahankin1@cc.swarthmore.edu (A. Luke Hankins) writes:
>ejd@yabba (eRic Donaldson) writes:
>>2.  The rules also state that for each AC, 5 points of damage is
>>absorbed.  This seems like an awful high amount.  Especially if it's
>>hard for characters to hit.
>
>yes, this is high. in my opinion toohigh and unrealistic. however this does
>encourage teamwork and group efforts in defeating a beastie (note that the
>damage subtraction is per round, not per attack.) because of the "unreal"
>factor, however, i have changed this to 3x AC per _attack_, and have found
>this to work _extremely_ well.

If I recall (it's been years) we used to subtract the AC from the
_base_ damage before colour multiplier (tended to make things more lethal).
Any house rule will do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Sorfleet			|
Contributing Editor, Ianus Publications	| Bell-Northern Research, Dept. 7K34
wls@doe.carleton.ca			| sorflet@x400gate.bnr.ca

Opinions expressed are purely personal and do not represent Northern Telecom
or Bell-Northern Research in any way.
From: gobeski8618@iscsvax.uni.edu (Steve 'Gobes' Gobeski)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Champions - Ambush - What are the rules?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:09:45 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug17.033248.19713@news.unomaha.edu>, PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) writes:
> paul@sco.COM writes: 
>> I've always used the 2*STUN rule as doubling AFTER armour penetration. The
>> actual rules as written seem ambiguous to me but this just makes the most
>> sense (you're reaction to pain will be greater if you aren't expecting it
>> but it still takes the same physical force to get through the armour!!).
>> 

Personally, I've never had any problem with stun multipliers being before armor
(as opposed to body, which is after).  Since stun represents the shock of the
force of the attack, and if you're surprised you're not prepared for it, hence
the 2x.  Having full plate may keep you from bleeding all over the place when
you get whacked from behind, but you're still pretty likely to get a
concussion.  The "physical force" that needs to get thru the armor is the body,
not the stun; the stun is pretty much a result of the impact of the attack.  Sg
From: jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joshua salter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: HERO attributes
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:57:02 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


	Has anyone ever split DEX into Agility, Dexterity, and Reflex, as well
as dividing Perception from Intelligence?

								-jsalter

			"Cogito, Ergo Sum."	-Descartes
			<I think, therefore I am.>