HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Deus Imperator)
Subject: Re: Tales from the Floating Walrus
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:47:31 GMT
Keywords: Greyhawk, Trashed

In article <Btv4IA.H3L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:
>	Okay, sorry for the weird title, but I couldn't think of anything
>better to put.  Anyway, I'll get to the point without any of my usual 
>meandering.  
>
>	Back when I first started on AD&D, I was introduced to a game world
>known as Greyhawk.  I've been fond of it ever since.  Sure, there's Forgotten
>Realms, and Krynn, and Dark Sun, but none of them seem to hold that sense
>of nostalgia for me.  
>
>	The question I have is this:  Has anyone been keeping up with the
>Greyhawk stuff besides me?  And if so, are you as dumbfounded by this
>Greyhawk Wars crap as I am?  I mean, come on!  Rary is Neutral EVIL???  When
>did this happen?  And it's explained that he became evil because he was 
>ticked at OTILUKE?  Yeah, that's enough to make me evil...:)
>
>	Anyway, just thought I'd see if anyone else thought this was a 
>cheesy waste of time.  Are there any other Greyhawkers out there?  
>Hellooooo.....:)
>
>The Walrus
>
Ah, for the good ol' days, when modules were cheesy dungeon crawls, and 
everything took place in Greyhawk.
	I personally love Greyhawk, and was diappointed at their casual 
ignorance of potentially the most exciting gaming world of them all.  Well,
maybe not the most, but you get the picture.
	Plain and simple, what's going on now will wipe the name of Gygax out
of D&D forever.  Does it disappoint me?  A little, because of all the wasted
potential.  But the dearth of stuff on Greyhawk forced me, rebelling against the
move to Forgotten Realms, to use something I forgot I had.  My imagination.
	I needed no $12.95 supplements describing yet another copied country,
as was prevalent in my friend's FR supplements.  Instead, I stared at my map
of Greyhawk on the wall, and let the creativve juices FLOW.  I revamped
old dungeon crawls, so that now they had grandiose purposes.  And I finished 
my grand project.  Detailing the Land Beyond The Sea Of Dust.  A NASTY place.
	I was all ready to turn this in, when I went to GenCon, and met 2500
people just like me, each with their own ideas, and mine were no better than
theirs.  Profit-wise, that is.  So I returned, and finished with the players
in a sense popping climax none will forget.  Or maybe they should.
	Liking the gods of Greyhawk MUCH better than the FR, I embraced 
Vecna Lives, thouroughly enjoying cacking the Circle of Eight.  I did not get 
Greyhawk wars, but for some reason, From the Ashes, out in October, calls to 
me.  I'll see what they did, and if I don't like it, write off $20 bucks, tell
no one to buy it, and smile that _I_ could have done a better job.

-- 
Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Everything But Love tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Oh God, does this mean we have to fight?"
			-Selina Kyle, _Batman_ 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Rangers and studded leather armor
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:40:18 GMT

ddj+@CMU.EDU (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes:

>dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>>>Yup, you can, Axly, but remember that non-rangers track at a -10 penalty and
>>>don't get by level bonuses to the roll.  One might allow for kits which
>>>ignore this penalty though.
>> 
>> That's using the 1st edition. In 2nd edition, you are making a stat roll
>> on your wisdom stat if you have this proficiency. Taking it more than
>> once gives you a bonus of +1 on the roll for every proficiency you take
>> above and beyond the initial slot put into tracking.

>The rule that tracking is heavily penalized for non-rangers is a 2nd
>edition rule.  Nobody tracks as well as a ranger until they've spent
>about six to ten slots on it.  Go read the description of the
>proficiency.

It's a -6 now that I look. Still, you can be fairly decent at it if you
have a decent wisdom. No, you won't replace the ranger but you can do
okay.  

Axly
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:47:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <67056@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>The fact that clerical spells don't specify the three kinds of components 
>indicates that they are fundamentally different, at least to me.

Um, Matthew, maybe you should look up the cleric spells. :-)

reproduced without permission (I'm sure they'll get over it :-):

Detect Magic (Divination)

Sphere:  Divination
Range: 30 yards
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 turn
.
.
.
The spell requires the use of the priest's holy symbol.

Other spells require components such as holy water, blessed vellum,
pebbles, etc.  Almost all require the holy symbol of the priest.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: ddj+@CMU.EDU (Douglas F. DeJulio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:51:11 GMT
	<1992Sep1.153535.6425@iscsvax.uni.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>    Hmmm, I just can't see the reason for needing a lab for scribing scrolls
> into spellbooks.  Any other thoughts on this?

The reason is that under standard AD&Dv2, you *can't* just scribe a
scroll into a spellbook.  You can use it to reduce the costs for
researching that spell.  Researching the spell still requires the use
of a lab, and there's a chance you'll fail.  Spells are harder to
acquire in AD&Dv2 becuase of this.
-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Deities
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:51:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92241.001424JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.155525.28415@walter.cray.com>, lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon) says:
>>
>>johnf@apollo.hp.com writes:
>>|>
>>|> >Please, everyone:  It's "deity", not "diety".  Say it out loud:
>>|> >
>>|> >"Day-It-Ee  --  deity"    not   "Dye-Et-Ee  --  diety"
>>|> >
>>|> >Thank you.
>>
>
> To Johnf:  the word maybe writen as "deity" but it is pronounced as:
>
>                      "DEE-IT-EE"
>

I suggest you check your facts before presuming to correct my pronunciation.

"Day-It-Ee" is a perfectly acceptable pronunciation of the word "deity".  I
agree that "Dee-It-Ee" is also an allowed pronunciation, but "Dee-It-Ee" does
not make it obvious which way the word should be spelled.  If you bear in
mind the fact that the word can also be pronounced "Day-It-Ee", then it should
be fairly easy to choose between the two competing spellings.
-- 
John Francis                                johnf@apollo.hp.com
The world can be divided into two classes :-
 those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Evil PC's without "Just hack-n-slash" and other problems?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:24:45 GMT

dudek@acsu.buffalo.edu (David T. Dudek) writes:

>player what to do.  I generally tell the players to chose any alignment
>they want, but discourage them to choose Evil (Lawful, Neutral, or
>Chaotic), or Chaotic Neutral.  I do this for the following reasons:

>- a character that was truly played as Absolute Chaotic or Evil would not
>  be trusted by his/her fellow PC's, and would rarely cooperate.

Would he? Remember, evil doesn't mean stupid. So, if I'm with the minions
of eternal righteousness, I'm not going to do something that gives me away.
The chaotic neutral is often hard to tell from the chaotic good with an
attitude.

>- if one PC was of one of these alignments, it would not really allow any
>  of the other players to play Good characters (especially paladins and
>  rangers) because they would not associate with characters of the
>  aforementioned alignments.

True. However, the characters in question may not ever be aware that the
other character is evil (unless you let them know). Evil characters are
normally very good at keeping their nastiness under wraps.

>- the game would be reduced to "kill it and get the treasure".

This isn't true. Evil characters are often great plotters. They tend to
hold grudges, do anything it takes to accomplish their goals, and 
have much greater ambition as far as worldly power than the good guys.
Again, evil doesn't come with a label on the forehead. 

The main reason to leave evil characters out of the campaign is that they
ruin the feeling of trust and cooperation that makes adventuring with a
party a workable concept. As a GM, I feel any actions that ruin the 
group tendency will destroy the campaign. This is why I no longer allow
"pickup" parties. I think you need some central reason to keep the
characters together and "A common lust for adventure" doesn't cut it.

Axly
From: gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:37:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: miavx1.1992Aug29.133730.12392
Distribution: na
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Aug26.220054.695@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

> 	But neither of these are 'realistic' penalties. Level limits have no
> justification outside of 'game balance' (what an ugly phrase). Also, level
> limits mean nothing at low or mid levels, where demi-humans are *clearly*
> superior to humans in AD&D. Restricted class choices, in general, don't make
> much sense either. Almost any race could have their version of a 'paladin' (I 
> could see a Dwarvish holy warrior, embodying the virtues and beliefs of the 
> dwarvish religion). A ranger is certianly possible for dwarves (more of a
> mountaineer than a forester, but a similar concept) and halflings. Just about
> every race has their own bloody religion, so any of them could be priests.
> Druidicism don't seem to fit dwarves or half-orcs very well, though. Because of
> their anti-magic nature, dwarves and halflings couldn't be mages, but I don't
> see why that should stop any other race (yes, a half-orc mage would be truly
> nasty...). 

Yes, I'm sure that you will argue until you are blue in the face that such
possibilities could occur. However, these type of characters do not make PC's
that maintain your precious game balance. If you start to hand out these
combinations to any player who wants them, you will end up with, and you can
dispute this for as long as you feel like it, a party where no-one is a human.
Then, if you take that into account, you would then have to, careful now you
have to use a bit of logic, assume that if no-one wants to playa human, they
must be less powerful, and the other PC races would also realize that. Humans
would quickly get relegated to second class citizens. They are second class
citizens if they live in demi-human cultures even now, and if you give the
demi-human races that type of power, they would eventually overrun human
cultures.

> 	I want penalties that make sense, not penalties that are slapped
> together for 'game balance' (that ugly phrase again) so that T$R can claim that
> game worlds would be humanocentric.

The penalties do not make the game humanocentric, they make humans a viable
race.

> 	I want penalties to balance out the advantages of each race, so that no
> race is inherently weaker or stronger for PC use.
> 	I want specific penalties for each race, that are (more or less) unique
> to that race.
> 
> 	Yeah, I want a lot. I want the game to make sense and to be balanced in
> a better, more logical, way.

I think you are going to be in for a disappointment.
 
> Brandon Cope

Greg Jensen aka:
	Thief extraordinaire!!!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.arts.sf.written
From: schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Timothy M. Schreyer)
Subject: The Worm Ouroboros 
Reply-To: schrey@prc.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:25:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.144832.10175@pica.army.mil>, smwall@aol.com (Steve Wall) writes:
|> >    Actually, I see "The Worm Ouroboros" as being the seminal fantasy work.
|> >    It predates "The Lord of the Rings" and includes many elements that I'm
|> >    sure Tolkien borrowes.  I believe it's by E.R.R. Eddison.
|> > 
|> Oh, come now, compared to TLOTR, "The Worm Ouroboros" was as dull as dishwater.
|> There's just no comparison.  I read "The Worm" maybe 18 years ago, but can't
|> remember a thing about it.  Basically it made no real impression on me.
|> TLOTR I first read about 20 years ago, and have reread maybe 4 times since,
|> just for the fun of it, and I NEVER READ ANYTHING TWICE! (well, almost :-}).
|> Besides, if you want to talk SEMINAL fantasy, you have to mention Spenser's
|> "Faerie Queene" or Ariosto's "Orlando Furioso", both of which predate
|> Eddison by centuries.  I think the original author meant 'best ever' when
|> he wrote 'seminal', and I have to agree with that description.
|> 
   I didn't say it was exciting, only that it was probably the nearest
   kick off point for modern fantasy.  I've read TLOTR many times, too,
   and "The Worm Ouroboros" only twice, and I like TLOTR better.

   "The Worm Ouroboros" has a definitely dated feel to it that would strike
   boredom into most modern fantasy readers, but it does a whole lot with
   with its imagery and the huge Romantic feeling it constructs.  I loved
   reading this book for the whole feel and texture of it.  You need an
   open mind going in to get much out or this feel is easily lost.

   It not my pick for `best ever,' if I knew that's what we were talking
   about.
 
          TIM
-- 
 Timothy M. Schreyer                         schrey@prc.unisys.com
 Center for Advanced Information Technology  (215) 648-2475 
 Paramax Systems Corporation                 FAX: (215) 648-2288
 PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: A new version of Familiars
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<1992Aug27.115205.700@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:39:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.115205.700@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:


[familiars...]
	   One change though: Use the table for determining the type of familiar
   from the 1st Edition. If a 'normal' animal is rolled, use Morpheus' system. If
   a special familiar is rolled, that's what the character gets. I would strongly
   suggest expanding the list of special familiars. For example, one elvish mage
   in one of my games got an atomie (MM2). If the roll on the original table is 'no
   familiar available', then, well, none is.


Can anybody e-mail or post that list???

Thanks.
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis)
Subject: Deities
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:23:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

Please, everyone:  It's "deity", not "diety".  Say it out loud:

"Day-It-Ee  --  deity"    not   "Dye-Et-Ee  --  diety"

Thank you.

Now all I have to do is get you to spell "armour" the right way :-)
-- 
John Francis                                johnf@apollo.hp.com
The world can be divided into two classes :-
 those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Munchikinism/Min-Maxing (Require Def'n)
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<1992Aug27.203741.1989@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:38:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.203741.1989@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson) writes:


	   Hmmm. >Somewhere< I have "The Complete Munchkins Handbook," which
   gives a hilarious comparison of the 4 roleplaying types. Ex:
		   ELVES
	   REAL MEN like Elfquest Elves
	   REAL ROLEPLAYERS like Tolkien's Elves
	   REAL LUNATICS like Santa's Elves
	   REAL MUNCHKINS like storm giants with pointy ears.

	   Yar, I'll definitely look for that.
		   Praxis


Hmmmm, it's really time someone posted this one again.... 

It's BEEN a year, after all.

--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:29:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: burrhus.1992Aug31.162929.27046
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <Bts2HB.sv@percy.rain.com> pluther@percy.rain.com (Pat Luther) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.200413.21792@burrhus.harvard.edu>, canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
>>	Here's something I've been wondering about for quite some time:
>>Why does a katana do d10 damage in AD&D?  Why is it so much better than a
>>scimitar or even a long sword.  Don't make sense to me.
>
>Because a katana is a two-handed sword!
>(at least, the one's I've seen are very long, and have hilt of such
>a size that two hands fit on it quite well.  I also generally see them
>used two-handed in ninja movies.)
>do the rules specifically say they're one-handed?
>There is a smaller sword, which is vaguely similar, called a wakizashi,
>which is used one-handed....

	I thought it might be a 2-hander.  I think the FHB rules say you
can use it either way.  From the ones I've seen, they're not much bigger
than a long sword, but do have plenty of room on the grips for two hands.
That could explain the greater damage, but then I would expect something
between the damage for a long sword and a bastard sword (as bastard sword
being larger.  Perhaps simply as a long sword used two-handed?
	I don't think TSR's rules adequately reflect a katana's
capabilties, but I'd like to patch up some house rules that do.

Cheers,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: g90c5787@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MS S WILSON-CROSS)
Subject: TARRASQUES 
Keywords: Not quite sacrosanct little buggers.
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:58:32 GMT

In a recent article, John C Van Hoozer suggested that killing a tarrasque is 
somehow not quite the done thing for druids (and partly rangers) who are 
supposed to preserve nature and life in all its forms - and that summarily 
slaying a creature of "Mother Nature" isn't the done thing for those 
character classes.
	OK, 2 points: firstly, the MC specifies that the Tarrasque is a 
killing machine, that will attack any living creature it encounters.  As far 
as I recall, its intelignece is negligible.  Using, as John suggests, "talk 
with animals or some other non-destructive method" of reconciling things 
with the Tarrasque would be utterly pointless - and singularly short-
lived. :)  
	Also, doesn't the MC also say that the Tarrasque is NOT a creature 
ogf Mopther Earth, ie NOT natural in the same sense as the rest of 
creation?  It was created, if I remember correctly, to wipe out an entire 
species.  Blake (a prototype Druid?) says that all life is holy, and indeed 
the cycle of nature includes destruction and death, but total annihilation 
and pure destruction being the object of a creature's existence is hardly 
part of the natural balance.  My impression is that it wasn't created like 
other creatures, it was horribly manufactured.  A druid and ranger would be 
virtually under OBLIGATION to try and rid the world of the life-denying 
menace.	Just a thought!
Arwen, the Chaotic Good Drow Cleric <Converted - yes it is rather amusing, 
	ain't it?! :)  >
From: kermits@pasifae.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Poisons
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:02:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

I am interested in taking a non-weapon proficiency about poisons.However the
 Player's Handbook (ADnD) has no such proficiency.So,anyone out there has
 made one or got any info ? I am interested mainly in distinguishing poisons
 and knowing how to use them (and what a given poison does).However,i would 
 like to be able to make poisons,even the easier ones.E-mail me and i'll
 summarize.
Aggelos
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rjr@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Richard J. Resnick)
Subject: Re: That damn Katana!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:13 GMT

>Well, now.  One person asks a little question, and there must have been
>what, 20 people who followed-up?

(*stuff deleted*)

>Not trying to be a dick, or a net-police, but I was truly AMAZED at
>how many different people could say the same thing.  I didn't think
>it was possible.  PLEASE, let's read the articles before we follow
>up.
	Here here! Agreed, Jorge. There is a command called 'm'. Hit that,
	and it marks the article you are reading as still unread. Then you can
	go back to it later to follow it up if what are going to say about it
	hasn't been said a million times over.

	Richard

*=====/=== ===^=====.==='========`============/==== = ^========~====/====^ =-=*
*        "I'll return your fire, if you take away your vultures..."           *
*                       - Prometheus, gaining leverage                        *
*===^==/=======\======= ===`====='===> ==========>====.===== =^=====/====*====*
                  Internet Address: rjr@titan.ucc.umass.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis)
Subject: Re: Son of the Munchkin Guide
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:37:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <LAVONIUS.92Aug30120305@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> lavonius@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Ville Lavonius) writes:
>
>FAVE DRAGON COMIC:
>
>	*Real Men* liked Wormy.
>	*Real Roleplayers* liked Wormy.

                                What about "SnarfQuest" ?

>	*Loonies* liked Wormy.

                                Loonies liked TAGTFOS and/or "Snits Revenge"

>	*Munchkins* like Robinson's War.
>
>WHO SHOULD BE EDITOR OF THE DRAGON:
>
>	*Real Men* would like Kim Mohan back.
>	*Real Roleplayers* would like to see Jeff Grubb usurp the throne.
>	*Loonies* would like Snarf as the editor.
>	*Munchkins* want to have EGG or Elminster.

If "Elminster" goes here,  allow roleplayers to want Ed Greenwood

>
>WHAT KIND OF CHAR. SHEETS DO PLAYERS USE:
>
>	*Real Men* use scrap paper and pizza cartons.
>	*Real Roleplayers* have details in a spreadsheet program.

                Alternative - RRs don't use character sheets; they improvise

>	*Loonies* use totally unintelligible multipurpose sheets of their own 
>invention.
>	*Munchkins* use Official Character Sheets (tm) only, without even 
>resorting to photocopying.

        Why should they photocopy?  The sheets aren't filled in until a GM
        queries something.  Anyway, there isn't enough room on an OCS (tm)
        to list all the unique items any munchkin posesses!

>WHAT KIND OF MESSAGES DO THEY READ ON THE NET:
>
>	*Real men* read only messages in which the word 'combat' appears on 
>the subject line.
>	*Real Roleplayers* read all messages in r.g.frp.
>	*Loonies* subscribe to alt.stupidity.
>	*Munchkins* have (thank God) no access to the netnews.

            If only this were true . . . . .
-- 
John Francis                                johnf@apollo.hp.com
The world can be divided into two classes :-
 those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd