HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:08:45 GMT

maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:


>> and then can do EVERYTHING AT ONCE. Hell,
>> their DEFAULT skills are as good as someone who was taught the subject.
>> Even if they have no experience in the field.
>> 	No, the inventors assumed that the average GURPS player would want
>> to  play certain kinds of characters. Consider the fact that in a high-tech
>> campaign, it is virtually suicide (pointwise) to make a physically strong
>> character. This indicates that the designers expected high-tech players
>> to avoid anyone with physical prowess greater than, say, the average couch
>> potato (e) .

>Sorry, but it's reality. Ofcourse it's pointwise "suicide" to spend
>points on something you have no use for. Just learning to swim if you
>live on a desert planet.

Well, he does have a major point on the default skills. I think that the
whole idea of default skills is one of GURPS biggest holes. High stat
characters can do everything well, which isn't reality at all. (Ever
ask a physics or chemistry grad student something not in her major?)
If they want to pay points for the skills, I can deal with a high INT
person being great at lots o' stuff, but getting it for free makes
GURPS seem kind of bogus.

Also, a lot of the skill modifiers don't seem to make any sense at all.
Bonuses on your gun combat due to INT?

As far as the stats cost, they are just plain bogus. If DEX determines
whether you hit or miss, then DEX is hands down the most important
stat no matter what time period you are playing in and should cost more
than the others. HT is important to how much damage you can take and should
cost more than STR or INT. If DEX cost more than STR, then someone wouldn't
feel bad buying some extra STR to be in character. For example, if you use
SpaceHero to do your game, the player buying his STR up to 20 vice 10 only
loses 10 points. That is going to cost him 3 points of DEX, but it doesn't
cripple him in gun combat. He's a little less likely to hit and more likely
to get hit, but most people can live with that 1 OCV/DCV difference. Doing
a similar thing in GURPS cripples that character.

Axly
********************************************************************************
*  Axly       *   "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired  **             *    it."                                                        *
* Red Sword   *   "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians."  *
*  Targa      *   "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two   *
*             *    civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of    *
*             *    them. "                                                     *
*             *      - Axly                                                    *
********************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:42:56 GMT

talbert@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Robert Talbert) writes:

> Face it, nobody who plays in a game where the character stats are random
> *wants* them to be random.

Hey, to use your own words (from a later message): speak for yourself.  I do
want my stats to be random. If I rolled all-max attributes, I'd re-roll; that
character would be boring in a group of normal characters.

> Instead, build it into the system so at least designing a character is fair
> for everybody. It's much more fun this way.

It's not fun for me.  I find it's more fun developing a character from random
attributes.

> A few years ago I sat down to write the perfect game system. ....
>
> The end product (what there was of it anyway) was so much like GURPS I just
> gave up and bought the damned thing. Y'all can flame away, but I am
> convinced.

Of course.  GURPS is perfect for gamers for whom GURPS is perfect.  :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:27:40 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1jnt1nINNjsu@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <2314@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

>Actually, it's genrally agreed (to my experience) - even in the GURPS
>community - that the 'Stat equivalants' chart in GURPS basic is
>screwed.  You're preaching to the choir on this point.

We have a winner! *YES*! This point is *very* true! I see a whole lot of
"ST should be cheaper..." and, "13 isn't such a great ST...", as well asdu
a good deal of "18 IQ is not so great..." and "I have at least a 16 IQ!"
out there. However, fact is, like it or not: the attributes, as they are
described qualitatively in the Basic Set, are screwed. Extensive GURPS
playing has showed that an 11 or 12 is noticeably above average; a 13 or
14 is mighty impressive, and the highest you'll see in most games; a 15
or 16 is just amazing, and sets that PC aside in the game world: perhaps
even meriting a Reputation; and a 17+ is god-like and seen only in
Supers settings. Comparing to real-life, something like this is more
appropriate:

        ST                             DX
11-12   Athletic                       Graceful
13-14   Beefy as hell                  Amazingly graceful :)
15-16   Pro weightlifter               Hands of surgeon, feet of boxer
17-18   World's best weightlifter      World's most agile athlete
19+     World's strongest person       Hermes himself

        IQ                             HT
11-12   Gifted                         Athletic
13-14   Near-genius                    Hale and hearty, never been ill
15-16   Genius                         Constitution of Rasputin
17-18   World's smartest person        As close to immortal as possible
19+     Smartest person in history     Healthiest specimen in history

-Kromm.

_______________________________________________________________________
|    "It's true! When you load    |   This reality has experienced    |
|     WordPerfect into memory     |          . . . failure.           |
|     backwards, you see a GIF    |      Please try again later.      |
|      of the face of Satan!"     |___________________________________|
|               -=-               |Dr Manfred Kromm can be reached at:|
|     -Secrets of the Masons-     |-----> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA <-----|
|               -=-               |McGill University, Montreal, Canada|
|_________________________________|___________________________________|
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1k4ovqINNt11@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <2524@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	I do. That's why I rant about GURPS. Nothing can save the system.

>That's odd.  Every time I read your tirades about GURPS (my game of
>preference), I see you backing it up with the behavior of one or two
>gameing groups that you've observed/participated in,

	Eh? I point out the nasty little quirks the system has (like the
notorious ST sink) and people try to DEFEND it by saying, "Well, gee,
*I* don't have a problem" or else by saying "Oh, well, that's because
your GM didn't fix it" -- the latter an admission of a flaw that exists,
and the first unanswerable since it's a matter of either not encountering
the flaw, or being unable to perceive it.

 and ignoring the
>multitudinous voices here on the net who say that it isn't so in
>their neck of the woods.

	Heck, people can WRITE anything. Can't judge a system on what 
they SAY...

>>	(You want REASONABLE and CONSIDERED discussion? We don't DO
>>that, this is .advocacy!)

>Ok, you snivelling heroic-level-only powergaming idjit! ;-)

	Loudmouthed point-mongering elitist slime!


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:25:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <2464@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>In article <1juu53INN99d@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>>When I mean 'military', I'm talking about the 'ShadowRun' concept, where a 
>>buncha skulky types go somewhere and steal/modify/kidnapp/kill/destroy
>>something or someone. Usually with a lot of stuff that looks and feels like 
>>it's right out of a Chuck Norris action film.
>	Nothing wrong with an occasional Chuck Norris action film. However, 
>I, like you, would find that kind of thing pretty stale.

Actually, in small doses, it can be rather fun. Some friends and I decides
to do a "GURPS Bad Action Movies" one-shot game, with all the modern action
movie cliche's, bad acting, snappy one-liners, martial arts, and more gunplay
than the end of _Scarface_. Lots of fun, for a one-shot. :>

 All I can say is that
>OUR games don't go at all like that. So far we have had: 
[Campaign synopsis deleted]

>>I don't know, maybe it's net.gamers, versus the rest of the gaming community,
>>but I've never played in or watched an SR game that got beyond the 'let's see
>>how many corp security types we can waste with the minigun'-stage. 
>	Blame THAT one not on the system, nor on the players, but on the 
>GM. That kind of thing is just flat out STUPID. 

Oh, I think I can blame the game itself, in part. SR seems to cater to the 
AD&D w/ guns crowd, and the way it's written and presented tends to emphasize
combat, 'attitude', and being the Meanest Mo'Fo' in Seattle.....
IMHO.

It is nice to see that people are doing interesting things with SR; but, in 
my experience, I haven't actually seen any SR with any roleplaying beyond 
"I'm a mean motherfucker"....

>	This isn't D&D, where a lot of lands are lawless and adventurers can
>flee from country to country without much chance of efficient pursuit and 
>punishment following. This is a rough country with effective, brutal law
>and efficient ways of tracking down the guilty if the guilty are worth
>enough.

Exactly. So many GM's (in any system) let their PC's go completely berserk, not
realizing that the 'powers that be' can -do- things about it. 

Anyway, it's nice to see that interesting stuff is being done with SR, but it
doesn't shake my opinion that the majority of SR gamers are playing (in you'll
pardon my overuse of an expression) AD&D with guns. <shrug>

-- 
    "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.advocacy
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:13:38 GMT

In article <1jpbq2INN6k4@titan.ucs.umass.edu> dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>  You wanna bet?  About half of the people who responded to my survey
>wanted some element of randomness in character creation.  Much more fun?
>Maybe for people who can't deal with weird characters...



This also means that about half the people who responded to your survey
DID NOT want some element of randomness in character creation.  Much less
fun?  Maybe for people lacking the creativity to think of their own characters
rather than letting some table or roll do their thinking for them.  (Yes, that
was both unfair and untrue--I was just turning the tables on DT's argument.)
Also, I know people who prefer pure design systems because it allows them
to have SERIOUSLY "wierd" or "useless" (aka not-combat-effective) characters.



>  I never said that power gaming was the way to go, but in real life, 
>people often do get something for nothing.

Uh, so what?

It's a GAME, lad.  I don't much like WWII tank games, but I don't tout my
superiority over those who prefer WWII tank games to role-playing games.


>  You must not be as good of a game designer as you thought, huh?


Alas, but you are turning out to be as unproductively acerbic as I thought.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:13:20 GMT

peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters) writes:

>1. High strength is always useful, but it is more useful in some genres than
>in others. (In particular, more useful in a low-tech genre than in a high-tech
>one.) ("More useful" includes the idea of being useful in a greater number of
>circumstances.)
>2. In GURPS, played "by the book", Strength has the same point cost in every
>genre.
>3. Therefore GURPS does not "balance" characters well in every genre.

That was one of the major reasons I dropped all attempt to use GURPS and
went totally to HERO for multi-genre stuff. The weighting of attributes
allows you to have the character you want without paying an arm and a
leg. If you want to be the strong guy in a future campaign being played
with normal people, it'll cost you 10 points out of a 150 point character.
If you want to have the same DEX score, it will cost you 30 points. 
I'd suggest something like redesigning the stat costs, but why bother
when you can buy the HERO rule book for $20 dollars and all the GURPS books
convert rather easily to HERO. 

Axly

********************************************************************************
*   Axly      *  "Is Axly tough? Yes. Talented? Yes. Brave? Oh, certainly.     *
* Red Sword   *   He is also erratic, irresponsible, accident-prone, and a     *
*   Targa     *   constant threat to public safety. The trick is to keep him   *
*             *   pointed in the right direction. "                            *
*             *         -Niki                                                  *
********************************************************************************
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:38:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.C1H2C7.BuE
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

>talbert@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Robert Talbert) writes:

>> Face it, nobody who plays in a game where the character stats are random
>> *wants* them to be random.

>Hey, to use your own words (from a later message): speak for yourself.  I do
>want my stats to be random. If I rolled all-max attributes, I'd re-roll; that
>character would be boring in a group of normal characters.

Huh? You just contradicted yourself. If you wanted your stats to be random,
you would take whatever came up the first time you rolled. If you reroll,
you really aren't playing with random stats, you are playing with 
"Yeah, those will work stats." Why not just say, "Well, I want about
a 17 STR, 12 DEX, etc.." and quit wasting time rolling all those
solids if you are just going to reroll if you don't like it?
That to me is one of the advantages of so called random generation
systems, you just sit down and go "Well, how do these stats sound
to you?" to the GM and he/she will go "Yeah, sounds reasonable to
me.". 

Axly

********************************************************************************
*   Axly      *  "Is Axly tough? Yes. Talented? Yes. Brave? Oh, certainly.     *
* Red Sword   *   He is also erratic, irresponsible, accident-prone, and a     *
*   Targa     *   constant threat to public safety. The trick is to keep him   *
*             *   pointed in the right direction. "                            *
*             *         -Niki                                                  *
********************************************************************************
From: adray@mcs.kent.edu (Adam Dray)
Subject: Kill File
Reply-To: adray@mcs.kent.edu
Organization: Kent State University CS
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:47:53 GMT

Looks like GURPS and ShadowRun (and aliases) are going into my r.g.f.advocacy
killfile...

I *do* want to thank people for using informative titles.

				Adam.

-- 
adray@mcs.kent.edu            The word is my oyster,
                              and meaning is
                              a tiny grain of sand.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:22:35 GMT

kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:

>In article <2464@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	Blame THAT one not on the system, nor on the players, but on the 
>>GM. That kind of thing is just flat out STUPID. 

>I'd like to suggest that the venomous jellyfish keep this statement in
>mind the next time he rants about GURPS...

Except that SeaWasp is ranting about the system. The other chap is ranting
about the people who play that system in his experience, which is kind 
of like saying you don't like Ford's because Bob drives them and you hate
Bob. 

Axly

********************************************************************************
*          Axly                  *   BLAM. BLAM.                               *
*      Red Sword Targa           *   "Stop."                                   *
*    "Sword's Path: Glory"       *   BLAM. BLAM.                               *
*                                *   "Police."                                 *
*                                *       -Officer Axly                         *
********************************************************************************
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:07:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1k245tINNkdf@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <2464@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	Blame THAT one not on the system, nor on the players, but on the 
>>GM. That kind of thing is just flat out STUPID. 

>I'd like to suggest that the venomous jellyfish keep this statement in
>mind the next time he rants about GURPS...

	I do. That's why I rant about GURPS. Nothing can save the system.


	(You want REASONABLE and CONSIDERED discussion? We don't DO
that, this is .advocacy!)


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L000)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:37:06 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1993Jan25.160943.5168@unislc.uucp> stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer) writes:

>CX6L (CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA) wrote:

>Now wait just a minute here. How can you say that I am reading in things that
>you "neither said nor implied"? I quoted peices of your post in which you flat
>out state exactly what I am flaming you for. Now that may not be what you
>"meant" by what you said, but damnit, that's still what you said. So go
>ahead and tell us what you "really" meant, but don't try to tell me that I
>need to read before I flame. Maybe you just need to be more careful about
>what you post, and clarify your opinions.

OK, I'll spell it out: I *assumed* (yeah, yeah, I know: "ass out of u
and me" *yawn*) that you'd been following this flamewar for a while,
and had maybe even read my earlier posts. If you had, you would know
my position on the issues and you would know in just what light my
remarks ought to be taken. My feeling is, if you didn't read all of
my posts on the issues, you have *NO* right to flame/criticize me:
you're shooting blind. If you *did* read my past posts, then you're
just wrong, and *are* guilty of reading things into my post. Either
way, I'm T.O.-ed because you, too, made assumptions. I'll stop if
you do, otherwise, just put me in the KILL file . . .

>Again, while I will accept that this is what you "meant" by your words,
>you definitely posted that you "do not need a chalenge". You DID NOT
>specify that you did not need a challnge with regards to any certain
>thing. Don't tell me to learn to read. YOU learn to POST!

I think my post was rather obviously remarking upon the role of
acting in roleplaying: that was where the thread was going. I said
that I did not need a challenge, read *acting* challenge, in my
game. As a previous poster has commented: acting involves following
a set script, and doing things with the character that you would not
be inclined to do personally. I prefer to improv my "script", and
have my character adhere to values which are similar to my own.
The "challenge" of doing otherwise is not enjoyable for me. Since
I play games for fun, and not to cleanse my soul so that I can
drop "holier than thou" flames on Internet, this is important to
me. Next time, read the *whole* thread before you shoot off.
-Kromm

_______________________________________________________________________
|    "It's true! When you load    |   This reality has experienced    |
|     WordPerfect into memory     |          . . . failure.           |
|     backwards, you see a GIF    |      Please try again later.      |
|      of the face of Satan!"     |___________________________________|
|               -=-               |Dr Manfred Kromm can be reached at:|
|     -Secrets of the Masons-     |-----> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA <-----|
|               -=-               |McGill University, Montreal, Canada|
|_________________________________|___________________________________|
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Subject: Re: Price$$$...
Organization: Boeing
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:54:39 GMT

jnephew@tirith.carleton.edu (John A. Nephew) writes:
 > What do people think of small (16, 32 page) items versus large (96+) items?
 > Do you favor the latter?  (Sales figures suggest people do.)  Why?

As a customer, what I tend to be interested in is getting the most bang for
the buck. If I can get a 16 page product that I will use over and over while 
gaming, then it is well worth it. If I spend a bunch of money for a 96 pg.
item that ends up languishing on a shelf, then I am (naturally) disappointed.

If I saw a 16-page booklet selling for $4.95, I'd expect it to be an essential
item or I wouldn't bother. (Example: DM Screen or a Quick-Reference guide.)
For anything other than a set of tables, I figure that 16 pages would probably
only cover 1 or 2 topics in any depth. Chances are I would have no interest in
those topics. In 96 pages, OTOH, there's bound to be something of interest.
(If not, then the company is probably doomed.)                 

Anyway, that's my $.02. Ca-ching.

-- 
 Bob Hall                   | Fear of change breeds complacency;
 Boeing Computer Services   | complacency leads to stagnation;
 root@chicken.ca.boeing.com | stagnation ends with extinction.