HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rick Pim <RICK@QUCDNEE.bitnet>
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:53:00 GMT


> are malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)

>I recently ran across something in the Torg rulebook to support my
>position,

>If the Tech axiom was a hard-and-fast limit on what
>technology would _work_, then as soon as your character failed his
>contradiction check while flying the airplane, not only would the
>engines stop, but the plane would drop out of the sky like a rock and
>be completely uncontrollable.

   i don't think this is necessarily something one can use to support
any particular position; i suspect that they did it this way to avoid a
situation like:  "you disconnect. you plunge from the sky. you die."
which might make their sample adventure a bit grim. :-)

rp
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (BRANDON COPE)
Subject: Re:  the working of axiom levels
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:16:06 GMT

Well, I see no reason why higher Tech items from Nippon Tech or the Cyberpapacy
would have problems working in Core Earth. I also see no problem with applying
the laws of physics as we know them to *any* cosm -- but I am prepared to have
them bent or broken by that cosm's laws of magic, or spiritual level, or
whatever else is 'unusual' about that cosm.

I really don't mind or care whether or not the players understand the basic
physics of cosms -- but if the GM doen't, he can't run a very good campaign 
(the reasoning some have given is similar to the fantasy RPG cop-out 'It works
because its magic, okay! Now shut up!')

If the rules are not internally consistant as they now stand, then the rules
MUST be changed.
From: bpostow@barney.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Axioms
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:31:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: barney.BPOSTOW.92Apr15233106
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science

In article <gatemail1.0b10415304413825@morticia> malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) writes:

>
>   But does this change the _universe_? If the Haitians believed that the
>   world was flat, or that the Sun orbited the Earth, would that make it
>   true in Haiti? Would the world become flat if you travelled from the
>   US to Haiti?

for the Haitians, the world is flat, if you go there, Your believes
determine your universe. not those around you. actually, I thnink that
there is a flaw in there, but I can't find it, I am not fully behind
this...
--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@barney.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: A small (HA!) request.
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.081037.14624@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mcdougal@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jon . McDougal) writes:

>       Please, help me out with this... anything you could post/mail would
>   be more than welcomed. And I >JUST< added this channel to my .newsgroups,
>   so I have no idea if I am asking a FAQ or if I have missed this discussion
>   already.
>
>   One of the UnTorged,
>		    Jon
 you have come in RIGHT I THE MIDDLE of the discussion about how
axioms work. I believe that there are... what? 3-4 threads on the
subject?

something llike that


--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Axioms
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:37:29 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b


Sean writes:
 
> > Not according to WEG. ;-)  In Haiti, the Magic Axiom is higher than
> > most other CE places because the people believe in VooDoo.
> 
> But does this change the _universe_? If the Haitians believed that the
> world was flat, or that the Sun orbited the Earth, would that make it
> true in Haiti? Would the world become flat if you travelled from the
> US to Haiti?

Is the world round?  Or is that merely our perception of it?  Is the
world, in fact, a disturbance pattern in the vast standing wave that
is reality?  One that we perceive as a globe suspended via
gravitational forces in a near void called outer space?

You tell me how you KNOW it's one or the other.  Is your perception
"changing" the reality?  Depends on how you look at it.  What about
the quantum theoretical law of observation?

> > Of course not: Does Cyberware cease to exist when YOU walk into
> > France?  Does the second sun cease to rise when YOU enter Cairo?  The
> > local reality exerts its influence on you.  BUT, if there are enough
> > local folx who believe differently, the local reality reshapes to fit
> > their belief.  It's the ultimate democracy. ;-)
> 
> Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.

A non-sequitur is a concept based on ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC.  Null-A or
some bizarre other alternative may or may not be the "valid" model of
the cosmverse.  You are extremely cosmcentric in your views.  So much
so that you appear unable to even acknowledge that fact.
 
> The point I am trying to make is that the Tech axiom levels do not
> make sense in and of themselves; for the technology limits as stated,
> something _outside_ the Tech axiom must actively limit the working of
> technology, because there are too many dependent consequences of an
> arbitrary prohibition for it to be embedded in the physical laws of a
> cosm.
> 
> For example, in the Living Land, there are enough physical
> consequences of there being a change in the way materials work for a
> shortbow to function, but not a longbow; but if you add Lanala's
> desire not to have Her people become dependent on nonliving things,
> then she can tap the energy from such things to keep them no better
> than what Her people could do for themselves.
> 
> But the imposition of arbitrary limits on what is _possible_ requires
> the active intervention of an outside force; by itself, the limits of
> the Tech axiom track are trash.


That outside force is known as the Everlaws.  

jas
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: marcogan@student.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re:  world laws
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:49:55 GMT

>Hmmm...anyone else having system troubles?

No.


But I still don't know what the GodNet is (or will be...)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who speak, do not know   	       	Mark Cogan
 Those who know, do not speak"  	       	marcogan@student.anu.edu.au

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: the rose papacy
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 19:12:42 GMT

the church is already corrupt enough to need the inquisition,
not to mention the exsistance of witches and the like...

the (sanctioned) papacy controls the tech by not telling people about it.
back on Magna Verita, only the most loyal get cyber.
(of course those pesky P-rateds who just "learn" things
 are probably helping spread the knowledge...)

what i didnt say in my first post,
is that i find it ammusing that the previously anti-tech church
has embraced the new tech, and it still doesnt understand it as
well as some of the resistance.
(i know something the pope dont know...)

to take away that does make for a more church oriented game,
but it denies the basic irony of the Cyber Papacy
(in my mind)

dave "there are more things between heaven and earth" oakes
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Organization: New York University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:46:33 GMT

tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne) writes:

>But seriously, in Aysle the Law of Observation says that nothing exists unless
>it can be observed.  Since sub-atomic particles can't be observed, then they
>don't exist.  You have to remeber that the laws of physics are different, or
>might not even exist in other cosms.  A lot of the physics discussions going
>on about the Living Land have got to remember that.

  [regarding discussion of physics in LL]

  There remains a reason for discussing physics in the LL, even if one
assumes that the physics is different.  The reason is PLAYABILITY.
It is O.K. for airplanes who's pilots disconnect to suddenly plummet
to the earth, but the GM who does this needs some consistency in
determining what does happen.

  1.  So that the GM can try to make rulings about effect consistent
      and be able to remember consistently what these rulings were.

  2.  So that the GM can more effectively communicate to the players
      how the "physics" of LL works.

  It isn't enough to wave the magic wand and say it's different.  One
must have a clear idea of how it is different, so that when someone
else asks "What if?" one may consider and attempt an answer.

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: albert@chain.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Quick Tharkhold Question
Date: 10 Apr 1992 14:34:28 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine

In article <kuabeaINNod8@aludra.usc.edu> soholt@aludra.usc.edu (Timothy Soholt) writes:
>I don't have the Thark sourcebook and I'm curious. What if any
>discussion of psionics is there in the sourcebook?

	No psi whatsoever.  There may be psi stuff in the LA Sourcebook.
-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Subject: Re: axioms, etc.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:12:30 GMT

In article <gatemail1.0b971548227801@morticia> Peter A. Schott <pact_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> writes:
>	You can flame me if you wish, but please keep it short and to the point.
I have found that flames on this newsgroup are extremely few and far between.
Expecting a flame sounds almost insulting to the clientel of this group.  We
are nice people who are not about to flame you for your views (I think you have
a point, in fact).  Please treat us accordingly.

Oh my, I think that might have been a flame.  Oh well, at least it was short
and to the point :-)

>Have a day.	Pete Schott	pact_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>    "This space unintentionally left blank."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: unknown difficulty
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:15:51 GMT

Brandon replies (to the idea that you cannot spend a PP once the GM has
told you the result):
 
> Kinda makes spending possibilities to help action kinda useless then, if the
> player, can't be mreo sure what they need. Also really hurts new players BADLY
> since they don't know the system yet. What you'll end up with is either 
> possibilities being wasted or not used when they shoudl be. If your going to
> make it hit and miss, why bother with them?

Not at all.  Uncertainty is a lot more exciting that certainty because there's
a chance for failure but you don't know how much of a chance.  If you know
the exact amount of chance you have at failing something, it takes away the
risk.  Plus, it reduces spending a Possibility to a mathematical exercise 
("If I spend the PP, the minimum value of 10 will guarantee that my roll
succeeds" or "Even with the PP I need to roll above a 17 to suceed, so why
take the risk and lose a PP?").

So a few Possibilities get wasted or a few action attempts fail.  Why make
things so cut and dried that players spend more time maximizing their
Possibility expenditures than attempting difficult tasks?

The danger, the challenge of uncertainity, that little rush when you pull
of the action you weren't certain you could do - that's why its done the
way it is.

You do have a point about players who don't know the system well enough being
disadvantaged though - in that situation, what I do is give them a vague
idea of how difficult the task seems.  For example, if their skill is higher
than the difficulty I tell them that its an "easy task".  If their skill is
much less than the difficulty I tell them that its "an almost impossible
task" or something similar.  If they're really green I'll just tell them
the Difficulty values when they start, work them into the vague terms, then
let them handle it from there on out.

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: the rose sand mage
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:49:17 GMT
Organization: New York University

bpostow@dino.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow) writes:

>the problem comes up that all of this mage's spells will be based
>upon the Earth knowledge, so there is no way that he can use more than
>one at a time... that could be a big problem

  I had believed that the restriction was that one could not be the object
of more than one spell using any given arcane knowledge.  Besides, there
is no reason why this mage couldn't use the arcane knowledges "sand",
"dust", "powdered clay" ...

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: the dreaded A word
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:54:17 GMT


damn damn damn damn damn

i said i would get out of this, but i cant

reviewing alt.games.torg
(why is everything so fried between that and the list, clay?)
i came up with a HYPOTHESIS for the 
"why did the Europeans determine the world at that time" bugaboo

first:
whatever belief holds a majority position in a cosm determines its form
(they may have been more europeans, or more european-esque beliefs)

second:
this is a majority of POSSIBILITY ENERGY, the stuff of reality
(europe was in a growth state at the time, and could then be said
 to have had more visionaries - read: Prated - than other places.
 that is why the european versions became THE version)

i really hope that someone will read this, (even if it contains the A word)
so i will not have to post it again

dave "he who wins writes the history" oakes

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:53:41 GMT

On Apr 12,  1:06am, Carl Rigney wrote:
> In article <gatemail1.0b96113332764@morticia> you write:
> >Why would a 3' bowstave work as a bow at Tech 7 while a 6' bowstave -- the
> >same shape, the same wood -- wouldn't?
> 
> Whats a 3?  What's a 6?  What's a '?  All three are missing at Tech 7 /
> Social 7, so both bows are the same in the eyes of Lanala.

You're dodging the question -- unless you believe that a Tech axiom of
7 also _must_ create a deity named Lanala to explain why a given
object does or doesn't work.

But isn't the existence (or lack thereof) a function of the Spiritual
axiom? It sounds like you've fallen victim to the "Any Tech 7 cosm is
the Living Land" mindset and fallacy.

Perhaps you could make another shot at answering the question if you
assume that the Spiritual axiom of the cosm being discussed is 0.

-- 
random sig #89:
Sean Malloy                                  | Sleep? Isn't that just a
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | completely inadequate substitute
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | for caffeine? 
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: the rose sand mage
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 19:13:50 GMT

i think that your mage might get bigger/easier spells
since all of them would require a "sand" theorem,
and he will obviously (by concentrating on 1-2 spells)
be much better than average in his chosen field,
but as you noticed, he is not limited (much) in 
the spells he can cast, just how (requires sand)

the only thing similar in TORG,
is the bonuses mages get on certain spells
for worshiping certain gods,
but i dont think this applies here
(though belief in some earth/sea god might do it...)

dave "have to make your own god though..." oakes
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:39:36 GMT
Organization: New York University

malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) writes:

> But I was referring in my example to cutting off a branch and
>immediately using it as a bowstave; it takes _days_ for a cut-off limb
>to die.

  This might very well be one of the laws of physics that does not hold
true in LL.  (But along the same lines, I always thought that the miracle
which allowed one to use a hrockt shoot as a spear pretty silly.)

  As for the Tech axioms, I agree that some of the selections are silly.
Levers after wheels is a glaring example.  I never understood the bow
limitation myself.  Screws come much too late.  (Archimedes invented the
water screw.)

  Not quite along the same lines, because it is speculative, but why
is the Tech level for biotech so high?  Recombinant DNA is the technology
of today.

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (BRANDON COPE)
Subject: Re:  trick shots
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:53:32 GMT

On page 75 (basic rulebook), it does state that drawing a weapon takes an
action.

Okay, how about modifying my idea as follows: the character must achieve a
Superior success with his Fast Draw skill in order to draw and fire a weapon in
the same action. A roll of '1' results in a major screw-up. Any other result
means that the character cannot fire the weapon (or swing it, if a melee
weapon). Even if they get a Superior success, they have a -3 bonus number
modifier (the shot cannot be aimed, etc.).
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Chases
Keywords: chase
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 06:27:43 GMT

In article <rose.703043346@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>
>  Well, I'm sitting here working on a skill reference sheet and discover
>that I don't understand chases as well as I thought.
>
>  1.  Suppose one person is chasing another on foot.  Is "Running"
>      or "Maneuver" the appropriate skill to use?

Running would be used to determing the 'chase total' at the beginning
of each round.  As his action, a character could use Maneuver but it
doesn't really affect the chase any (unless he maneuvers someone into
falling down or whatever).

>  2.  Suppose someone in a car is chasing someone on foot.  Are
>      there any adjustments?

The driver would use his Land Vehicles skill while the guy on foot
would use Running for the chase total.  

>  3.  Suppose one is flying and the other is not.  What about then?

Flight or Air Vehicles skill (depending on source of flight).

WEG is supposedly going to have a set of new chase rules in the
upcoming Land Vehicles catalog.


-- 
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, Torg guru)
jogle@nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tnev2@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: Re:  trick shots
Reply-To: tnev2@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:42:33 GMT

In article <gatemail1.0b952150322424@morticia>, jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim)) writes:
>Dave writes:
>
>>i have developed a fast draw skill, which is NOT cosm specific
>>(so Nippon samurai can "whip this out" as well
>
>Bad idea.  Allowing anyone the ability to gain the initiative just by
>buying a couple of skill adds is very overbalancing; making it available
>to everyone no matter their cosm is even worse.  
>
>I was under the impression your 'fast draw' stuff was going to be part of
>gunslinging, not something seperate.  A skill that lets you alter the Drama
>Deck is going a bit far without something like a World Law behind it.
>
>Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)

I have to second Jim's opinion here.  I've seen what a really cybered-up
highly skilled martial artist is like for game play.  They don't need any
more advantages in combat.  The Gunslinging skill sounds great though.  
Is there any reason it couldn't be available in a few more cosm's (NOT 
Nippon Tech or Tharkold)?  I was just thinking of a way to liven up Core
Earth as a home cosm.  Wouldn't some of the stuff in Lethal Weapon or 
Die Hard qualify as some gunslinging (or would it just be possibility
charged Fire Combat?)

	Just a passing thought...

		-CJ  
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: Psionics and Magic
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<EdtbcqS00awFEx610N@andrew.cmu.edu> <rose.703009225@acf9>
	<BPOSTOW.92Apr11151016@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> <rose.703022471@acf9>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:06:59 GMT

no, it isn't contrary to anything, it just shows that we are actually
progressing MUCH MUCH faster than even we thought!!!

--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]






Newsgroups: alt.games.torg