HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg - back seat driver
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:05:35 GMT

Robert J Hall writes,
> 6. Different scores for skill and difficulty, depending on the type
>    of dice. The roll is compared to both scores:
>      a. Roll > skill: automatic failure.
>      b. Roll <= skill but > difficulty: try again.
>      c. Roll <= skill and <= difficulty: success.
>    Note that if the skill level is below the difficulty, there is
>    no way to succeed. If the result was a success, the character can
>    try yet more skill checks for improved success.
>    Problem: Chance of success is always the same

Something like this might have some merit.  I haven't given it
much thought, so I won't say anything more about it right now.
I think if nothing better is suggested (and so far I haven't seen
anything), the difficulty should be applied as a modifier to
the roll.  It's easy and straight forward.

>Combat will inevitably become more simplified at strategic levels.
>Better to work out the low-level combat first, with occasional reality
>checks at a higher level.

I agree.  Most of the games I have run or played in have involved
much more one on one combat than large battles.  It is therefore
more important to get the one on one battles working well and fit
the large battles to the existing system.

>One way is you could divide the bodily functions into different
>categories. For example:
>   Mobility (Legs)
>   Weapons  (Arms)
>   Command  (Nerves)
>   Sensors  (Eyes/Ears)
>   Energy   (Lungs/Heart/Stomach)
>   Shields  (Bone/Hide)

This is an interesting way to look at damage.  It warrants
further consideration.  (BTW what does SFB stand for?)

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Organization: Junior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:26:53 -0500 
From: "Peter F. Delaney" <pd1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FUDGE Healing?

Steffan,

> Given how simple FUDGE wants to be, this issue has to be sidestepped,
> I'm sorry to say.  Even the most complex games out there don't really
> take healing and hit points accurately into account.  

Er, yeah.  What I was trying to say is that this was an issue that came
up when we were doing tests of our system.  Stronger guidelines were
suggested by players.  I got carried away with the details - it happens
when you sleep less than four hours a night for two weeks.

Our concern was that the "block of time" for healing system works great
if you have blocks of time to heal in, like in your example.  The
problem gets harder to deal with if the group is constantly moving, like
ours was.  In a situation like that, it becomes difficult to adjudicate
healing (unless you let it be quite rapid!).

> I don't want to write an objective system that detailed, and I really don't
> want to go into such detail on how to run a subjective system, either.  It
> *can* be handled subjectively, as written in FUDGE, but I admit there
> are no guidelines for it.  The problem is that if we write guidelines for
> this, we have to write guidelines for every detail of a game . . .  I
prefer to
> say what I said in the opening paragraph: this game is for experienced
> GMs. Hopefully they'll have some idea of how to handle little details like
> that. 

On second thought, you probably don't want to add complexity here.  Any
additions are going to be restrictive, not helpful.  I still think this
is sticky, but the rules should *NOT* address the issue, to retain
generality as well as to allow individuals to retailor the rules quickly
based on the situation.  Apologies for the classic no-brainer on this
one.

.
Pe+eR Delaney, CMU, Pittburgh, PA ... Compuserve: 73750,3667
Internet: blackclove+@cmu.edu ...  Local: pd1x
"I do not question our existence, I only question our modern needs."
-Pearl Jam
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: FUDGE Damage Proposal
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:44:20 GMT

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>Each attack is given a rating on the Terrible to Superb scale, and then 
>>damage is resolved as a contest between Damage and Wound Resistance. 
>
>Yes, I had originally put this in the very first version of old SLUG, but
>later dropped it as an extra die roll.  It also doesn't quite make sense
>that someone could hit the same person twice in a row with exactly the
>same amount of strength in the blow, have the other person blow their
>parry by the same amount, and do 4 points of damage one time and 0 points
>another . . .

	Well, depending on what people think, the Contest part of it can 
just be pulled out, and we can just compare directly the values for Damage 
and Wound Resistance. This speeds things up, and the Contest can be kept as 
an option for more random sorts of damage like falling damage, landslides, 
etc. where a hit roll is not involved. 
	Of course, the Contest can also be kept for those who think that 
similar blows always do the same damage. 

>
>>Two people of equal skill with Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points 
>>in a slugfest will be unable to hurt each other: their damage modifier 
>>is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed combat), and they can never hit by 
>>more than 4. 
>
>Hmm - *could* two such people damage each other?

	Yes, they could, the same way even smaller and weaker creatures can 
damage each other, such as munchkins, cats, rabbits, etc. To some degree this 
is just an elegance complaint - the system handles larger creatures with more 
detail than it handles smaller creatures. I think the easiest way to see this 
is to compare a fight between two tigers, two lynxes, and two tomcats. 
	I think Wound Resistance which accounts for both size and toughness 
may be easier to deal with than Hit Points and Armor separately. Again, 
something to be playtested, I think. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         | 
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE On The Fly Character Design
Keywords: FUDGE progressive character design
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:32:54 GMT

clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga) writes:
>Might I suggest as an option in FUDGE the following system: You may
>start the game with a completely BLANK character sheet, and 18 points.
>You then may spend these points to give your character gifts, skills,
>attributes, and faults, during the game, at the standard 1 gift = 2
>attributes = 3 skills rate...  However, you may never place a skill,
>gift, or attribute on the sheet without actually using it in the game.

First of all, forgive me if this is being posted twice.  I begin to
suspect my news reader of flakiness.  I posted a reply, and it never
showed up on my site!

Second, this is an excellent idea that I'll see if I can write up for
the Addenda, thanks!  I like it a lot.

However, it brings up some terminology problems:

1) Points:  this word isn't used in FUDGE at all - should it be?  Some
people have a negative reaction to the word points - it has strong
connotations of more complicated systems.  OTOH, using simply "levels"
as I have done is admittedly confusing: different levels have different
values.  An example of the confusion is shown in Ed's post above: 1
gift = 2 attributes = *6* skill levels, not 3.

So, should I get rid of the generic "level" and talk about points
instead?  Or we could come up with a synonym for points, such as ...
hmmm - I can't think of any except things like "run" in baseball, which
is hardly appropriate!

2) 18 levels seems awfully low, Ed, unless you mean 18 gifts, which
could be translated to, for example, 3 gifts, 10 attribute levels and
60 skill levels.  This is a fairly cinematic but very playable game -
not as high-level as a superhero game, for example.  Is this what you
mean?  Of coures, if I write it up for the Addenda, I'll genericize it to
any level of play the GM has in mind.

This actually brings me back to (1), above, so I'll continue with:

1.1) If we *do* translate everything to points, it becomes easy to
simply say how many points are in a game.  Ed appears to have chosen 1
gift as the basic point, unless I'm grossly misreading him.  We could
also choose 1 skill as a basic point, in which case 6 points = 1 gift.
In this case, Ed's 18 points would be called a 108-point game.  This
would allow for fine tuning, but is remarkably close to GURPS starting
characters, for probably about the same power level - bummer.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: wound.types
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:11:07 GMT

In response to Ramez Naam's proposed wound system, I feel the
system is very realistic.  In fact, I feel it is too realistic
for my game playing needs.  I like to know how hurt my 
character is; I do not like to know how much blood he has lost,
how many organs are falling out, etc.  Although some may favour
this type of realism, I do not think the majority of gamers
will.  Further, I do not like systems in which abilities change.
I have already posted my reasons for this, so unless everyone
has forgotten, I will not repeat them.  Overall, I believe
net.rpg needs something much simpler for its wound system.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb)
Subject: Re: SOND, was RE: a New line
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:02:05 GMT

In article <BzDrGA.Lwr.2@cs.cmu.edu> mfp+@CS.CMU.EDU (Michael Polis) writes:
>...  I don't intend the game to be completely silly,
>but I do think that it must be somewhat light-hearted.  Children are not
>very serious, and I think a game played in a purely serious manner would
>not do them justice.
>

Hmm.  Are we trying to dream up a game about children-as-viewed-by-adults or
are we trying to get closer to how children view themselves and the world?  I
don't think children, even small ones, view themselves as 'silly' much more
often than adults do.  My kids are serious (but kid-serious) a lot of the time
- it's just that what they're serious about isn't so important to many adults.
We think of kids as having a 'short attention span' - but my daughters can
spend hours doing whatever's important to them: drawing picture after picture,
for example.  When the older one was two and we gave her a bunch of Duplo
blocks, her first project was building a tower taller than she was.  The
younger one has an eagle-eye for animals; it's tremendously important to pet
the neighbours' cat whenever she meets him.  I recall a 1.5-year old who loved
to take shoes out of the cupboard and line them up in a row.

My point in most of these examples is that kids can be *very* serious about
things that are important *to them*.

On a somewhat different topic: There's lots of evidence that kids, especially
small ones, (a) learn faster (b) react more creatively, than adults.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: naam@cecer.army.mil (Ramez Naam)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: response.FAQ
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:23:55 GMT

cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

>I have yet to see a symmetric ability tree of at least four levels
>that provides the realism in characterisation that is obtained with a
>freeform tree.  In symmetric trees, one must either continue a branch
>when there is no real reason to, or eliminate the branch, thus losing
>a potentially important ability.  For example, the binary tree given
>in the FAQ lacks the Charisma stat which I as a GM have found a lot of
>uses for.  In the original article, the author of the tree suggested
>that Charisma be incorporated with the Willpower stat.  This is
>definately a loss of realism, which was recognised by the author of
>the tree.

It is not true that all branches must continue to the same level
in a symmetric tree.  It is only true that IF the branch continues,
it must have the same number of children as any other branch.

In response to the idea that magic should be based on Stats that
exist in a non-magical world, I present this modified Stat tree:

			All Stats
		Physical	Mental

			Physical
		Fortitude	Coordination
	
			Fortitude
		Strength	Constitution

			Coordination
	Dexterity(hand/eye)	Agility(whole body/balance)

			Mental
		Intellectual	Instinctive/Subconscious

			Intellectual
		Reasoning	Discipline/Willpower

			Instinctive
	Intuition/Creativity	Personality/Charisma


As I said, not all branches need to be further subdivided.
For example, one may wish to play with all of these at the
same level, except for Instinct, which is one meta-stat.
When one encounters a roll or skill based on Personality,
one merely uses "Instinct" instead.

NOTE:  I know some of these names are cheesy, which is why
I suggested alternate possibilities.


--
Ramez Naam
naam@terra.cecer.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: FUDGE combat
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<1992Dec12.033305.10843@oz.plymouth.edu>
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 03:47:13 GMT

Andy wrote:

>>Steffan, can you give us a hint on what you are thinking about different
>>scales?  I can't come up with an objective form of this that doesn't involve
>>multiplication, but that's what I think of when I hear the word "scale".

And I replied:

>Hmm - I posted this two days ago - did it never get through?  It's true
>no one commented on it, but I thought other posts of mine at that time
>were being commented on.  The subject had the word Scale in it, I hope,
>but I don't remember it precisely.  Did anyone see this?

I just looked it up: I posted it Thursday and it does not have the word
scale in the title; it's called FUDGE: Damage and Hit Points.  

Let me know if it didn't get through and I'll post it again.  (Groans
from the anti-FUDGE crowd.  :-)

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: FUDGE: Modifiers
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:42:38 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Dec10.223611.9530@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:

>Cool.  What I need to hear, thanks.  That's two for levels and one for
>die rolls so far . . . 

Okay, add one more for levels.  It makes everything much simpler, and seems
to fit within the game system much better.

>-- 
>  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I used to trust the media to tell me   |   I used to think that only America's
   the truth, to tell us the truth      |     way, our way was right
 But now I see the payoffs              |   But now the holy dollar rules

(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
                                        -Travis Works
                                        gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu


-- 
 

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: GAMA
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:46:57 PST
Organization: BBS

Can someone post the mailing address to GAMA and tell me what the current
fees are?  (If anyone knows their current membership price.)

Also, Can anyone recommend distributors (game/RPG books) for California, Oregon
and Washington?  Mucho appreciated.

Del

dlaird@terapin.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: wiltinkm@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl (M. Wiltink.a73A.telnr-015-138378)
Subject: Re: flicker in vga animation
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:21:29 GMT

In article <199213.2180.2470@dosgate> "danny hawrysio" <danny.hawrysio@canrem.com> writes:
>
> Anybody here know how to reduce flicker when animating sprites in VGA?
> I've already done the hard part (sprites) now I just need to reduce the
>unsightly flicker.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

I assume you restore the background before drawing the sprite in its new place.
It sounds like you could reduce flicker by not restoring the whole background
first, but drawing the sprite in its new place at the same time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wiltinkm@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl
Maarten Wiltink

Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: v101q4ct@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Brendon M McNamara)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Virtual walking???
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <17m2=8h@rpi.edu>, cleggp@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes...
>How about this:
> 
>Rig up a harness on the person.  Nothing complex, just something that will
>stay in one place on a person's body.  Stick 'em on a normal treadmill.
>Turning is acheived by turning the person's body, which the harness will
>transmit to the computer(s).
> 
I like this idea. Does anyone remember when they were a little kid and
your mother stuck you in the jumpy harness in the doorway? This might do
the trick, and it allows things like jumping and falling. It would
be difficult to get into a vehicle with a harness on though. I think the key
is that the atmosphere (for lack of a better word...perhaps "apparatus
feedback mechanism") should allow a wide variety of activities.

Just my $.02.

BMc
From: naam@cecer.army.mil (Ramez Naam)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: wound.types
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:28:23 GMT
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs

The wound system I use in my homebrew system is a combination of 'hit
points' and wounds.  Any blow does a certain amount of damage, which is
a measure of how much tissue it actually destroyed/tore/burned/whatever.
Note that, in my system, a sword does maybe 10-15 points of damage, and
a normal human body takes at least 1000 to destroy completely.
Based on how much damage the type of attack does (which is normally a
constant), how well you hit the target, and how vulnerable the target
is, the blow also causes Pain and a Wound.  A character must roll on his
Endurance (a skill, but heavily dependant on Willpower) vs. the severity
of the Pain.  Failure causes a Stun of a level dependant on how badly
you failed the Pain roll.  Each level of Stun subtracts 10% of the
character's skills and active stats.  A stun level of 10 or greater
means the character is unconscious.  Wounds cause bleeding.  Bleeding
subtracts from the character's Constitution stat.  A character is always
at a stun level at least equal to (% of Con down from max/10) rounded
down.  So when a character drops below 90% of his normal Con, he is at
Stun 1 until he somehow regains the Con (rest and recuperation, or a
powerful magic spell).  The average human has 10 Con, so this is usually
pretty easy.  (Besides which, if you've bled very much, the fight must
be at an advanced state, and any wound that could cause serious bleeding
could also probably stun you badly, giving your opponent the
advantage.)

The advantages of the system are that it
a)	Realistically mirrors the way people actually die: from blood
	loss or massive trauma to the heart or head.
b)	Makes it nearly impossible to have humans that can absorb more
	damage than a horse.  (Con, being a stat, is next to impossible
	to buy up in any genre except Superhero.)
c)	Realistically mirrors impairment from pain.

Hope this helps.
--
Ramez Naam
naam@terra.cecer.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: apace@mta.ca
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats.ideas
Reply-To: apace@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:16:26 GMT

In article <naam.724172075@terra.cecer.army.mil>, naam@cecer.army.mil 
(Ramez Naam) writes:
>
>My stat tree would be something like:
>			All stats
>		Physical	Mental/Magical
>
>			Physical
>		Fortitude	Coordination
>
>			Mental/Magical
>		Mental		Magical	
>
>			Fortitude
>		Constitution	Strength
>
>			Coordination
>	Hand-eye (Dexterity)	Whole body (Agility)
>
>			Mental
>		Willpower	Intelligence
>
>			Magical
>	Power/Resistance	Luck/Intuition/Sensitivity
>
>As you can see, I like binary trees...  Anyway, that's roughly
>how the game system I've been working on for the last 2 years works.
>
>--
>Ramez Naam
>naam@terra.cecer.army.mil
   Wow.
   This is really good. Workable and realistic. It also makes it extremely
easy to remove magic from the system.
   I think that this should form the foundation of the net.rpg stat system.
Perhaps a little farther down we should split into triplets to make things a 
little easier.  
   I'm also not so sure about Willpower. Maybe we should have social skills 
in this position instead?
   Anyways, I like the idea in general.  Nice idea, IMPO.

tONY pACE
apace@mta.ca
From: laurence@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Lee Laurence)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: magic.ideas
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:50:31 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Jonathan O'Donnell) writes:

[...]

>Is there some
>way that players with access to magic could make up what they want?
>This could then be moderated by the GM.  Since the GM can make up
>what the NPCs can do, the balance is left to fine judgement.

>Unfortunately, this could not really be called a 'system'.

Well, this is the way we've always ran mages, and within a system, too (at
least when we used a system). That system, however, is not in favor with
very many people on r.g.d as far as I know, so I'll not provoke howls of
agony by mentioning it.  But it is certainly possible.

With respect to more "politically corrrect" games, I seem to recall that
Ars Magica is fairly reasonable with regards to making up spells on the
fly.

-- 
Dustin Laurence       "As sensitive and broad-minded humans, we must never
                       allow ourselves to be in any way judgmental of the
laurence@alice         religious practices of other people, even when these
caltech.edu           people clearly are raving space loons." -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: rec.games.design