HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: James Petts <pettsj@visigoth.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Trinity Problems (** MILD SPOILERS**)
Organization: No Affiliation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:51:47 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
     <1992Nov13.041604.24362@starbase.trincoll.edu>


In article <Bxo066.4D5@gate.demon.co.uk> James Petts,
pettsj@visigoth.demon.co.uk writes:
>>6) What is the waterfall and the place behind the waterfall for?
>>7) How do I look in the hole in the barrow ?

OK, I went and played the whole nine yards over the weekend, and am fully 
genned up to answer all your questions. 

6. The place behind the waterfall has something which will stop you from 
burning your hands.

7. You don't need to look in the hole in the barrow (assuming you mean 
the small hole in the wall.) Examine it carefully, tho'

James Petts

********************************************************************
* "We use the classical theory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, *   
*  and the quantum theory on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."   *
************************************** Wm. Bragg *******************
From: m_rheau@pavo.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Subject: What is TADS?
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:22:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


There's been a lot of reference to TADS, but I'll be the first to
admit I don't know what the hell it is (a prog. lang. especially 
designed for writing text games?).  

I would be grateful for any insightful comments/details/limitations
that it has to offer.

A N  D    R        E                W
                                    M                I        L    L  E N

m_rheau@pavo.concordia.ca

=8]
   \ hi! I'm Sig.

Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
From: James Petts <pettsj@visigoth.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: New "Infocom" Games: Just what the heck is going on?
Organization: No Affiliation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:27:46 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1


In article <1992Nov17.222228.11458@mail.cornell.edu> Dave Horlick,
drh2@cornell.edu writes:
>Who knows anything about Return to Zork, Leather Goddesses of Phobos II:
>the Pulsating Inconvenience from Planet X, or this Sorceror 201 thing?
>Has anyone played these? Are they any good?

Dunno, just seen the ads. For me, put graphics into an adventure and you 
spoil it. I can not believe for one minute they will be any good. Looks 
to me as though they are going all Sierra-On-Lineish. :-(

James Petts

********************************************************************
* "We use the classical theory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, *   
*  and the quantum theory on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."   *
************************************** Wm. Bragg *******************
From: uerics@mcl.ucsb.edu (Eric D. Shepherd)
Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Infocom Books
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:11:05 GMT

The book _Enchanter_ was a lot of fun to read.  I've read it a couple of
times.  It kinda conflicts with the events of the Enchanter Trilogy, but
that's not too unusual. :)

- Eric S.

--
Eric D. Shepherd                   | Apple II Alliance Charter Member
InterNet: uerics@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu  |           ACM Member
FidoNet:  1:206/2713 Eric Shepherd | Programming Law #1: "When in
AOL:      Sheppy                   | doubt, rewrite from scratch."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Subject: TADS v. AGT
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:23:54 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

I already know how to write adventures in Adventure Game Toolkit.  Is 
there a reason for me to learn TADS?  Which, in your opinion, is better?  
Why?

Thanks,

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: cardplay
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:15:15 GMT

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:


>To be honest, though, I'm not sure I'm liking the direction Loren's
>system is going - it's getting too complicated for a game with the word
>Simple in the title.  More thoughts later - I just wanted to reassure
>Paul that his objection would be valid if a hand were to be held, but
>that I wouldn't want such a situation.

Seriously!  One thing that bugs me is that discussions of game design
seem to move instantly to combat systems.  Can we chill on that for a
while?  The card system is very elegant but only good for conflicts. And
it is getting complicated fast.

To return to Stephan's original SLUG suggestion...  I like the idea of
selecting anything in the world as skills/attributes. Perhaps a
"standard" list to start out with, of the stereotypical ones, would be
good, but by all means let it get weird.

I wouldn't *force* players to take negatives for every positive; this
would land you, as Stephan implies in his examples, with character
sheets full of pointless negative attributes and skills (the Waco
Kid's Needlepoint skill) which exist merely to justify the positives
and may never come into play.  How many negative attributes did Indy
Jones have?  Did they really justify his positives?  Or were they all
in things we didn't see, like Ballet, or Weasel Taming?  I'd give
players a certain amount of positives for free.  And I'd make it a
random amount.  (sound of S.O'S. retching in the background!) The
reasoning: psychological.  If I have the same number of points to
increase my attributes as everybody else, every single frivolous but
interesting ability will lower my amount of non-frivolous, useful
abilities and make me relatively weak in the party.  Whereas if there
is a certain degree of randomness built in, there's going to be some
variation no matter what, and there is no absolute Game Balance
between characters, so Devil take the hindmost.

Anyway, another great idea is that of leaving things in reserve for
when they're needed.  That should be allowed; after all, in stories we
often discover things about characters that would never have come up
if the plot hadn't taken a certain direction...  I like that.  Perhaps
a certain number of those should be given free, without negatives,
too.

What say?

(In my "dream system", characteristics would not necessarily be listed
in terms of ability or power, on graded scales of any time.  They
would be whatever properties defined the character, whether useful or
not, and gave him a place in the story.  They would accumulate during
the story, and not be spelled out beforehand (though they could be
planned, they needn't be)...  But I'm not sure in how much detail such
a thing can be done...)

Ed Heil. Yes, THE Ed Heil
c/o Chris Lantinga, clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu
references: <1992nov12.004009.1@wharton.upenn.edu>,<1e1k3einn8b1@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
From: mdlcpgs@lhn.gns.cri.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg - "modularity"
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:03:46 GMT  
Organization: Institute of Gelogical & Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand.

I'm going to put my plug in for a modular design. Lets face it, the
Net.RPG discussion is of most interest to those of us who are habitual
home-brewers and rule-changers ("it would be more realistic/faster/etc
if we did xyz instead"). Nothing as a monolith is going satisfy me nor I
suspect even many of the people following this discussion. However
the discussion is great platform for new ideas and points out the
strengths and weaknesses of many possible systems for perspective of
a large net wisdom.

I see Net.RPG as a collection of tested modules possibly several competing
modules (eg in combat I think there is an irresolvable difference between those
who think combat is best simulated on a very detailed blow v blow system and
those who see that combat is best simulated by outcomes of a series of
feints/blows/movements). No one idea presented is necessarily "best" but will
suit some rather than others. 

This question of style has implications for the discussion in another way.
Suppose Net.rpg decided to concentrate on mechanic X only. All those we
think this stinks drop out of the discussion - it having no further relevance
to them. The further into development, the more people have dropped out. If
the idea is to have many modules then those who hate mechanic X can continue
work and play-testing on mechanic Y instead and end up with two good modules.

Personally I am very happy with my character generation system (consensus
style aimed at building a good group) and very happy with my magic/psionic
though that is too world/genre specific to interest Net.rpg. What I badly need
in something better in the combat department. My group oscillates between
liking things Tunnels and Trolls simple and RQ complex without feeling happy at
all. The net.rpg has thrown up a lot of modules to test and play with and this
I think is its strength.

Going back to my magic/psionic system, here is case where we have players happy
with the system and its world, but it being too specific for a net.rpg. I think
that there will be many similar possibilities and it is best to have range of
alternative modules to choose from rather so you can pick the one that suits
the GM world rather than a single bland system that tries to do for everything.
Worse still is when a module is intricately tied to other parts (I know
everything is tied to character stats but I have never had any bother modifying
these for the individual stats system in current use). 

	$0.02 from Phil
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: va3@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Newell)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Skills
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Volunteer
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:58:27 GMT

In article <KETIL.92Nov17152658@sandel.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>>>>>> On 16 Nov 92 18:51:16 GMT, (Spike) said:
>	Spike> 17" paper! Instead, how about setting it up so that
>	Spike> characteristics are the defaults rolled for skills.
>	Spike> Below characteristics are "broad" skills (Comp Sci,
>	Spike> Thief, Magic, Guns). Below these are sub-skills:
>	Spike> Programming, Debugging, Hacking; Pickpocket,
>	Spike> Lockpicking, Stealth and so on. This gives the players
>	Spike> a simple way to fine-tune the level of detail they want
>	Spike> in the game.
>
>I second this!  Yes!
>And if a character has a 'broad' skill but not the applicable 'narrow'
>skill, use the 'broad' skill at a disadvantage.

Me and my Cousin were designing a game using this idea.  Our skill tree went:
	Body   Mind    Spirit
Then, Body might be split up into:
	Strength  Dexterity  Quickness  Agility  etc.
Then, Agility might be split up into:
	Acrobatics  Stealth  Climbing etc.
Then, Acrobatics might be split up into:
	Vaulting  TightropeWalking  Landing  Swinging  Tumbling  Stunts etc.

The first level (Body Mind Spirit)  would be *very* expensive.
Each successive level would be a little less expensive.
For example, let's say our party encounters a trapdoor.  The GM might call
for everybody who fell thru the trapdoor to make a Landing roll (Landing
reduces the amount of damage you take from a fall).  Everyone who had the
"Landing" skill, used that value (ave. 135 or so) Everyone who didn't,
backed up one level, and used Acrobatics (ave. 45 or so) instead.  If they
didn't have *that*, they went back to Agility (ave. 15 or so) If they didn't
have *that*, they went back to Body (ave. 5 or so)

The main problem with this is "modularity".  If the group decided they only
wanted Level 3 realism, then the ave. chance for a skilled person to make
their landing roll would be 45 instead of 135.  You could get around this
by using scaled Difficulty Modifiers, but that sounds chutzy.

Another problem is that it leads to *very* messy character sheets...

>	Spike> Caveats: If skills are based on stats, costs (in the
>	Spike> point-alloc generation system :-) must be very
>	Spike> carefully balanced.  Otherwise, it is easy to run into
>	Spike> trouble as GURPS has, where it is *way* too
>	Spike> cost-effective to buy high stats and pump a few points
>	Spike> into a skill, rather than just buy the skill at high
>	Spike> level.

See the above.

[stuff deleted]

>--
> = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
> = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =

bryan newell (va3@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg:  separate skills and stats altogether
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:39:24 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <1992Nov14.225104.29708@alf.uib.no>, magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no
(Magnus Alvestad) wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:05:50 GMT, jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca said:
> 
> 	Robert> Agility: Endurance: Toughness: Wit: Possibly some
> 	Robert> other "mental" stats.
> 
> Ugh! No, I think we'll stick to the four stats someone proposed
> earlier on; Form, Fitness, Consciousness, Subconsciousness.
> 
> Or maybe: Form, Fitness, Intellect, Instinct.
> 
> F's for the physicals and I's for the 'intellectuals'.

How about "Form, Vigor, Consciousness & Instinct, or some
such? I hate alliterative characteristics - I can't abbrev.
them to only 1 letter.

And shouldn't we start talking about what these things actually
*mean*?

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: net.rpg -- offline
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:22:50

>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 05:36:52 GMT, tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) said:

>Hey guys, this discussion is fascinating and all that, but it is consuming
>95% of the bandwidth in this group. Would you mind terribly moving it off
>line into a e-mail group? 

	Tim> But what are we to use this group for, then?  This matter
	Tim> is definitely within charter of the newsgroup.

Not to mention that every posting I've seen concerning this, has the
words net.rpg in the Subject.

(gnus-kill "Subject" "net.rpg")

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Diff genres, diff skills?
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:16:18 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Nov 92 19:24:31 GMT, (Spike) said:

	Spike> skills for your cyberpunk game. Ever try to build a
	Spike> medievalist in Shadowrun? No Heraldry, no Medieval
	Spike> History, etc.

	Spike> Personally, I'd like to see a large, comprehensive
	Spike> skill list, even if not all skills will be of use in
	Spike> every game, even if some of them are fluff. (Fluff
	Spike> good. Fluff make interesting character.)

Is it just my mind playing games with me - or have you (or someone
else) posted almost exactly the same message some time back? All my
deja-vu-bells are ringing overtime..

Next thing random number generators will stop being random..

Ia! Ia! Shub-Niggurath!

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: rrn@stein.u.washington.edu (X Visser)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Post 2 of 2
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:26:30 GMT

Hmmm...

I read SOS's, and am somewhat confused. I mean, why not simplify?

Traits are (I'd use 3 of 'em, but use more if you like) rated from 1-6.
Tasks are rolled on 1d6. If more, the task fails. If less, the task succeeds.
the degree of success (DOS) is equal to the amount on the die when a
success is rolled. Thus, in a contest, If Ed and Joe have 4s, and they roll
1 and 4, respectively, Joe wins.

Damage is x(DS). Apply as a penalty to assets, or simply from Strength/Con/End
as hp loss. Parries reduce attacking DS by their own DS, so you can reduce the
effects of a hit without completely blocking it.

Award, say (for 3 traits), 10 points to divide. Skill points are equal to
(two lowest traits). Cost of skills is:

[(2Skill Level)/(Trait+3)]^0.5, rounded to the tenth (publish a table for
exponetiaphobes). 

For super-powers, start with more points for traits, and allow powers to be
bought, at levels, from them. So, in a super-hero game, start with, say, 16
points, and make speed:4, or somethiong cost a certain amount of points?

	-H


Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Skills trees
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 00:50:32 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:43:12 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David
>>>>> Lamb) said:

	David> catchy acronym that could incorporate "Modular
	David> Polyversal Rule Set"; MPRS doesn't quite swing it) have

Basically Unimprovable Modular Polyversal Rule Set

or

BUMPRS!

and you could make PR bumpers that said "BUMPRS"..

	David> twists: 1. If you gain experience in a skill, you can
	David> spread some of that experience up higher in the tree,

Why didn't I think of doing it that way? Should be pretty nice, but as
you said, some tuning is needed. Too much makes for too much paperwork
and too fast advancement, while too little makes for excessive
specialization. Tricky, this.


	David> 1. The "spreading experience up the tree" thing is very
	David> hard to manage by hand.  I've had to write a program to
	David> help people do it.

Really? I suppose a non-deep tree would prevent this problem? It's
tempting to organize it really prettily in a very-deep tree, but a
wide one might be a lot smarter, as many branches are only used in
some genres.

	David> 2. For an obscure skill, nobody can remember where it
	David> is in the tree, and the tree is hard to search.  My

Of course, that will always be a problem, increased by a deep tree.

	David> Other are really tough to figure (and use), like how to
	David> organize various fields of "lore" or "knowledge"

Oh, that's just hard work. Easy.

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: john@psych.toronto.edu (John Rick)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: cardplay
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:27:27 GMT

In article <17y1#hb@rpi.edu> cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
 
>Possibility Cards:
>     You look at the cards you have in your hand and think about the numbers
>you currently hold.  "Hey, I've got a straight!  This jump is no problem!"

Something else that occurs to me is that with a deck of cards one is sampling
the distribution without (much) replacement.

If you are attacked by a dragon leading a horde of orcs (don't ask why it
isn't the other way around!) and you blow all your good cards to nail the
dragon, you'll then be unable to hit the orcs (assuming you haven't gone
all the way through the deck yet) - or are all cards shuffled back in once
discarded?  This makes for a lot of shuffling.

If cards ARE shuffled back into the deck after every round, it's still the
case that in any large combat some players/monsters/whatever will be able
to make good hits while others won't, just because of the way the cards
are distributed.

IT seems to me that in order to make this system work you need an unlimited
deck that always has the same proportion of cards in it (i.e. always 4 aces,
4 kings, etc., no matter what's been drawn already).  Why not just use
dice?

-- 
*** "Creation science...is not science because it depends upon a supernatural
*** intervention which is not guided by natural law.  It...is not testable and
*** is not falsifiable." - Justice Wm.R.Overton, U.S. District Court (Arkansas)
  =====>  Email: john@psych.toronto.edu -or- rick@lake.scar.utoronto.ca <=====
From: doane@helios.UCSC.EDU (Jay Doane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Traits
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:54:30
Organization: /u/doane/.organization
	<1992Nov21.021538.18281@oz.plymouth.edu> <7p11tvl@rpi.edu>
	<1992Nov21.191104.16559@oz.plymouth.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: sos@oz.plymouth.edu's message of 21 Nov 92 19:11:04 GMT

Steffan,
With regards to the "common trait list" that a character might often
choose from:
Perhaps a good way to start developing this idea is try to convert old
favorite characters to SLUG. Post both the originals and the SLUG
versions and let us see specifically what level of detail you have in
mind. Later, these conversions could be placed in an appendix.

-Jay Doane
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,rec.games.frp.misc
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Desinging a mecha game
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:35:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov15.204636.2727@bvc.edu> meierdalepau@bvc.edu writes:
>
>	I realize that many of you are busy trying to design an RPG through 
>the 'Net, but I have a question maybe someone here could answer.  What do I 
>need to consider when designing my own mecha game in the way of a rules 
>system, equipment, and other materials (i.e. background history, mecha 
>construction, etc.)?
>
>Dale Meier

#1.  Role-playing
	The biggest problem with some of the more popular mecha
games (Battletech coming to mind first) is the lack of good
role-playing mechanics, if any.  I'd like a good role-playing system
that WORKS.  (R. Talsorian's combat rules are awful...they don't
work and they're too disorganized.  Combat's just one example and is
hardly The Whole Thing.)

#2.  Organization
	Keep your information well-organized.  Include a page of
charts/whatever that people can printout (if being distributed
electrinically) or photocopy (if being sold...whatever).  Don't
scatter things.  Remember the things your English teachers taught
you.  (Grin)

#3.  Flexibility
	Don't force people into a single corner (a la Robotech).
Allow some freedom.  Include rules for battlesuits up to larger
mecha.  Maybe even allow conversion rules to other systems (I'd die
for this...).  Make sure the rules work, of course.  It would also
be nice for there to be various rules to alter the strength and
power of the mecha designed ranging from the near future style of
mecha play to the far future.

#4.  Gaming Style
	Offer rules that will allow for cinematic as well as
realistic play.  The main problem with all the generalization I'm
asking for is that you lose out on detail here and there.  You've
got to decide where to stop and where to go further.  It'd be great
to play with True Lumbering Mecha as opposed to the anime tank
stompers (although they'd prolly get pretty messed up...but still).
	That kind of stuff.

#5.  Gaming World
	If you're going to offer one, offer a good one.  Don't go
the R. Talsorian way with Mekton II and offer a brief shell (and not
a really good one at that).  Those pages would have been better used
for more rules or SOMETHING.  But that's life.

#6.  Illustrations
	If this thing is ever going to be printed, don't put in lame
illustrations and don't stick artwork in for the sake of artwork.

	Well, all this sounds so simple when I say it.  From
experience, though, fulfilling all of the above suggestions is far
and away from simplicity...

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats contn'd
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
	<KETIL.92Nov16025050@sandel.ii.uib.no>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 02:26:24 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Nov 92 02:50:50, ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) said:

	M> Also remember than in such a hieriarchy, not all substats
	M> would have to be numeric, some could be boolean or text.

	Ketil> Hmm..don't know about this, boolean - well, but text?
	Ketil> How would you go about using this in the game (i.e.
	Ketil> generate other values from it, tables that use this
	Ketil> value, etc)?

Well, not all stats will have to be used for numerical calculation -
text stats will be useful for descriptions of facets of a characters
that can't be quatified into a 1d number. 

I think it's a nice idea to include these descriptions in the
hieriarchy. That would make even those relunctant to write a
description put some text on their character sheets.

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design