HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: GURPS: Alien races -- Too powerful?
Keywords: GURPS Aliens Space
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:14:57 GMT

BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>If there is going to be any meaningful difference between races some are
>going to probably be better than others at certain things.  If all your
>elves are are humans with pointy ears who live in the woods, why bother?

	Wait a minute, here. Instead of saying that elves get +1 DX for 
10pts, we can say that they get +1DX for the same cost as humans. This does 
*not* make the latter elves into 'humans with pointy ears'. 
	The only purpose of the former way is to encourage those interested 
in point efficiency who are playing elves to take higher DX. 

>
>Now in GURPS (and I assume other point games) it will be "cheaper" to make
>a strong, tough, (stereotypical) dwarven fighter than an equivalent human
>fighter.  Now, if the only reason a player wants to be the dwarf is 
>'cause it's cheaper, that's her problem.  She's a lousy roleplayer.  Dump
>her and get some real players who want to play a dwarf 'cause they fell
>in love with the little buggers while reading Lord of the Rings (or 
>whatever) and want to be a DWARF, not a short little human tough guy.

	I object strongly to this. There are *alot* of players out there 
who will point-optimize their characters and still make good role-players. 
Point optimizing is to be discouraged, certainly, but don't throw away 
perfectly good players just because of abuses to a point system. 
	Just make it clear that you don't pay attention too much to the 
points. Insist that the characters be reasonable and not unbalanced rather 
insisting that they be '100 points'. 

	The other thing I object to is the idea that 'Only *true* role-
players should play these games.'  If everyone is having fun, then there 
is nothing wrong with playing for any motives. 

>
>What I consider truly criminal is a system like AD&D1 where non-humans are
>purposely crippled 'cause "otherwise everyone would want to be one."

	It depends on the level of the game. The games I have been in were 
mostly low level - there nearly everyone took non-humans (typically elves) 
because they were more effective. Yes - we were being bad role-players, 
but we were having fun. 
	The last game of AD&D1 I played was a very fun dungeon crawling 
romp marked by truly ingenious and effective methods of cleaning out the 
place, where the engineering majors of most of the players showed - like 
eliminating a horde of stirges by smoke inhalation. It was short and silly, 
and made a nice break from more serious games. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down
From: loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Dangerous Journeys -- Mythus is out
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:40:13 GMT
Organization: Wharton Marketing

So Mythus, Gary Gygax's new game, is out.

It's almost 400 pages of perfect bound book. Nice artwork. At least one 
chart per every two pages. One is forcibly reminded of EGG's fondness for 
charts, abbreviations, and 'AE' and other such combination letters. Aerth. 
Dweomercraeft. Gaeg me wythe a spoone. Jaest kyddinge.

As for the system, after looking through it and being reminded a great deal 
of a system I've been writing, somewhat less of DC heroes, and a great deal 
of Warhammer FRP, it looks pretty good, even though the basic and advanced 
rules presented aren't totally compatible with each other and there are 
several other problems like that. I'm primarily interested in the advanced 
rules. Mythus prime (the basic rules) is interesting, but require eventually 
switching to the advanced rules. The system is skill based and allows either 
point or random generation, emphasizes the social class of the character, 
and has almost as many acronyms and abbreviations as Ysgarth. I forgot how 
much EGG loved acronyms, since I haven't read the AD&D1 DMG in a long time, 
but this brings it all back.

Quiz:
1. What does HP stand for? (hint: Not hit points)
2. What does OP stand for? EP?
3. What does MPG stand for?
4. What do M, P, and S stand for, in both versions of the game?
5. What does STREET stand for?

Also, like WFRP, Mythus is anything but an elegant system. It looks like a 
lot of fun to play, what with Joss points, Heka, and all the other 
gobbledygook that EGG can throw in the cakemix, but not exactly easy to use 
as a reference *or* to learn from the book.

Comments? Additions? Controversy?
Loren
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller              LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Shoes are the most basic prerequisite for liberty
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: GURPS Time Use Sheets (Was Re: GURPS: Timeliness of Books)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:00:04 GMT

In article <0095DF6F.922EEB00@abby.chem.ucla.edu> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:
[snip]
> It's not as
>heavy on paperwork as the Time Use Sheets (does anyone actually use them?),

We use time-use in a bi-weekly Space game. This is good for my
character, who had to buy off -36 points of dependant *quick* (I knew I
was going to have to do that when I created the character), and wouldn't
have had much in the way of skill increase otherwise. (Now that the
dependant is bought off, my skills are getting entertainingly cinematic.
:-) ) However, the eidetic of the group benefits *immensly* from
Time-Use. It's almost scary.

For fantasy games, we don't use Time-Use, though one does have to have
enough time to learn a spell/skill if you want to put a point into it.
(House rule -- it takes the listed amount of time to learn the first
spell in a college, but only about a half-day to learn subsequent
spells. This is how you upgrade a party from two teleporting mages to 3+
in the middle of an advanture. :-) However, it does give a mage
something more to do with points than dump them into spell levels until
they reach skill 25 in everything.)

--E_McCoy@unhh.unh.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: hummell+@pitt.edu (Andrew G Hummell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: frp map maker
Summary: I goofed.
Keywords: Hexmap & Hexview
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:28:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In my post last week concerning Hexmap and Hexview, I erroneously listed
the wrong ftp site.  The correct site is ftp.cica.indiana.edu in the
pub/pc/win3/misc directory.  The full filenames are: HEXMAP10.ZIP and
HEXVIEW3.ZIP
							Andy
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "I'm not insane...just a reasonable facsimile."  | Hummell@unix.cis.pitt.edu
  "Character is what you are in the dark."         | Andy Hummell ...that's me 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University Observatory
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:21:49 GMT

In article <Bs323p.GC3@acsu.buffalo.edu> v131p9t3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) writes:
>In article <UeQRWRi00VpE0jzuUh@andrew.cmu.edu>, wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes...
>>Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??
>> 
>>WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?
>
>Mechs are generally built using a substance similar to muscle tissue,
>a strong 
>polymer which contracts when it has a current run through it.  Given proper
>
[....]
>Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.
>

And then the argument goes back and forth for many posts along the
lines "Can too build a tank powered by synthetic muscle!" "Can't!"
"Can!" etc. etc.

Fortunately, I have the solution to make everybody happy. Put the
mechs on bicycles.

Michael W. (author of the "horses on steam powered pogo sticks" comment.)
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:11:25 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <55236@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>True, the A10 is a tank killer bar none, but the US Air Farce has decided
>to phase out the A10 (even AFTER Desert Storm)--in favor of the F-16,
>if you can believe it.  Why?  Jet jockies hate the A10, because it isn't
>fast and glamorous.  Furthermore, A10 pilots keep making F-16 pilots look
>like fools when it comes to precision and ground support (yes, Virginia,
>the US Air Farce actually tries to make F-16s to ground support).  
>Unfortunately, it's the high-flyboys who become colonels, not the ground
>support pilots.

	What!?  The shitheads!  And the A10 was my favorite modern combat
aircraft too.  
	Rumors of ICE folding, rumors of the A10 being phased out, rumors
that Mechs aren't realistic ... what is the world coming too?

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.misc
Subject: Re: Huge Robots as weapons, are they valid?  Does it matter?
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner)
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:30:14 EST

ins769v@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
> There is one valid reason that seems to have been missed on this thread.
> Psychology.
> 
> Think about it, which is better to cow the natives.
>   a) a box on wheels (or treads etc)
>   b) a vaguely humanoid mean son'o'bitch.

or  c) a LAW rocket :^)

> Look up adeptus titanicus for this sort of idea expounded.
> Of course this is only really effective if the "natives" are
> quite superstisious.

you are right, of course. the whole Warhammer 40K system works better
than BTECH, given the premise. of course, WH40K also makes no bones
about being fantasy.

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
`, "Get off the cross. We need the wood." steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman)
Subject: Re: Champions
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:33:15 GMT

In article <COVIN.92Jul28124227@despair.cs.uchicago.edu> covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.161159.13382@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>
>	   First of all, an incredibly bright character should not neccessarily 
>   have a high Hero INT stat. INT supposedly represents how fast you can think 
>   on your feet, not how overall smart you are. 
>
>
>Bullshit.  That is what the explanation of INT in the rules states;
>however, since as noted there are many INT-based skills which should
>be based on how smart you are, and buying up your INT flat-out makes
>you better at them, INT must represent how smart you are.

No, no, no.  Correlation does *not* imply causality.  If you don't have many
INT-based skills and a high INT, does this mean you are exceptionally smart?
Maybe, or perhaps you figure out simple to moderately complex things rapidly.
There are some physicists I know who wouldn't notice a bomb going off in the
next room, provided they were thinking about something else.  Incredibly
bright, but methodical and slow thinkers.  Simple test:  make a character
with a 53 INT and *no* INT based skills.  Is this character smart?

>Irrelevant, actually.  If I can buy +1 to all INT-based skills for 5
>points, or buy +5 INT for 5 points which will give me +1 to all
>INT-based skills *and* +1 perception, and +1 perception costs 3 points
>otherwise, then I'm ahead 3 points if I buy the INT.  If I didn't want
>to have that high a perception roll, and the GM won't let me buy it
>down, it's somewhat less efficient than it could be, but unless I'm 
>playing in a hero-level campaign where there are characteristic
>maxima, *there's never any good reason to buy 5-pt levels with
>INT-based skills*.  They're just not as good as buying INT.

Bingo.  The +1 with characteristic rolls are very useful in a characteristic
maxima game.  Also, even if you are in a full blown game, it is much easier to
justify being good at science skills than it is to be a super-genius.  I
find it very difficult to play a super-genius without playing a couple of
tricks.  Works well as GM, not so well as a player.

Andy Pearlman

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: ins769v@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen)
Subject: Re: SRUN: Combat, Initiative, Rule of 6's...
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:17:33 GMT


Ever thought of counting up??
Means that The Gaurds will get the first shot in, an the the sam'll scrag
them.


Ha hA ha just  kiddiinngg

If you are worried about initiative look in the combat faq under initiative
Try system three, (it is approximately the one I use)
in this everyone gets one dice and increased speed means a smaller
deviser.
IE. sir samurai has wired III, rolls one die (4)
has 10 (modified reaction) +4 (the roll) and gets an action for every
three numbers
at 14,11,8,5,2 (well in  my system I have taken out the 4 action limit)
Darling decker has no increase and rolls a 2
Initiative is 6 devided by 7 so 1 action at 6.

This means in combat while the samurai will _more_ often act first
the others have a _small_ chance of getting a shot off before them.
If you notice it also means the sammi's pools will refresh faster.
nasty heh?


*****************************************************************************
*Veltyen   ....GM from Hell        *" As a child I always wanted a puppy,   *
*ins769v@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au *  then again, we were starving anything *
*ins769v@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au   *  with meat on it would have done."     *
*veltyen@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au	   *      Captain Vimes, City Watch         *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:2749 rec.games.frp:24198
From: olds@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Angel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
Subject: SRun Re: Spell Locks
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:23:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.54868
Followup-To: was Re: SR: Blood 'n guts games
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

>Jerry Stratton writes:
>
>Here's a question for Mage/shaman players. Do you find spell locks at all
>useful for keeping spells on yourself? I thought about having a spell
>(Oxygenate) locked on my latest character, but I couldn't think of a
>reasonable way to protect myself against spell grounding. I mean, as
>near as I can tell from the  rules, anyone with a spell lock is a
>sitting duck for astral mages/shamans.

	Yes they are uselful if you are the type who can't handle the
	modifiers from holding it.  Not too many people can.  There is
	no reasonable way to protect yourself from grounding, but as
	long as you don't abuse spell locks, I don't see why a GM would
	taunt you for having one.  Granted, he will still use it and 
	save it as a last resort...or maybe second ;) but I don't
	see why you really need to worry about it if you aren't abusing
	them.....if you aren't locking Personal Comabt sense, with increased
	reactions +4 and armor I don't see why the GM would hold it against
	you every time you play...but there is always the possiblity of 
	grounding....

        BTW, AXLY :
		 I just thought that you might want to know, that
		 not all gm's "don't use them in astral combat much".
		 Ours does ... EVERY  chance he can get.  Call him
		 cruel, but most of the people who have locks have a
		 reaction spell locked, thus, most of the time they are
		 able to hold their actions to protect their locks...
		 kind of makes 'em useless but hey, they have the
		 quickness when it is really needed....Also, most 
		 people no longer have locks anymore....very few
		 still are brave enough to keep them... nobody likes
		 them now because of how  much of a threat he has
		 made them into...for PC's and NPC's  ;-)

				Gemini, The Other Half (Hermetic Female Mage)
				  "He's the braun, I'm the mucsle!" ;)
		         	    (* yikes, what a ?title? *)
				email olds@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: SRUN: Upper limit on armor spells?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:48:06 GMT

rhunt@med.unc.edu (Rick Hunt) writes:

>I have a question to all of you Shadowrun gurus.  I am playing a mage and
>wanted to cast a spell locked armor spell on myself, after watching our
>big troll go down in one shot.  I have the spell at force 5, a magic pool
>at 6 and an elemental at force 4 and used him for 3 dice.  We used a
>target number of 3 and I rolled 14 dice, resulting in 10 successes.  The
>GM was not amused by the prospect of me having 10 points of dermal armor
>permanantly locked on.  He said that there _must_ be some kind of upper
>limit on these things but we couldn't find anything.  Are we missing
>something?

>Rick Hunt "Touch"
>rhunt@med.unc.edu

Yup.  This is a general problem is SR.  Your GM, perhaps with a little
input from your gaming circle, should come up with a rule of thumb
to limit the spell.  There are a couple other spells that need this
fix also.  Or he could just, as comeone already suggested, regularly
purge the party of the more useful spell locks.

--Peter


______________________________________________________________________________
						|
     "Guards!  Let me draw their fire!"		|	p-white@uiuc.edu
		   --Scapegoat,_Marshal Law_	|
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk (was: SR: SRII combat mods)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:00:47 GMT


>    Mmmmm.....personally I think that the skill is for people who actually
>have real training in this type of thing.  Just 'cause your street sam isn't
>formally trained doesn't mean he knows nothing.  He's still alive, no?  That's
>pretty hard to do if you're one of the main combat people and know absolutely
>NOTHING about tactics.  It works relatively well in the armed forces, but
>that's a larger group where the few people who do something clueless will
>usually (that's only usually) not screw everything up if everyone else does
>their jobs relatively right.

Tactics can be bought two ways, as a specialization of Leadership, or as
a specialization of Military Theory. I suppose if you wanted to reflect
a street sammi's rather paltry tactical skill, I'd say he would rate
something like a 1 in Leadership. Concentrate with this to get a 2 in
Military Leadership, then Specialize in Tactics. This yields a 3 in 
Tactics, which I think is a bit high for the average Street Samurai.
Remember, most of your Shadowrunners aren't trained warriors, so their
idea of tactics isn't going to be that good. 
A tactically proficient group of guards will mop up most Shadowrun teams
rather quickly. Simply put, most SR GM's aren't exactly combat tacticians
themselves, so their enemy forces seldom fight as well as they should. 
Perhaps having the opposing team leader roll his Tactics skill and adding
+1 to his men's initiative for every success at a target of 4 would reflect
this. It would make corper's a little tougher for a logical reason: They would
fight like a trained team, whereas most SRun teams fight like a mob.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly             *  "... and grenades are also useful for digging foxholes, *
*  Red Sword Targa  *   removing unwanted shrubbery, unclogging drains..."     *
*                   *      -Axly's Book of Explosives for Pyromaniacs          *
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: chadwick@world.std.com (Chadwick Ngan)
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:36:04 GMT

In article <30JUL199214051584@jane.uh.edu> chem7l@jane.uh.edu writes:

>tanks would never get very close to the lines.  So, with proper (extensive) 
>preparation and a LARGE ground-support (and necessarily air-superiority) air 
>force an army can do quite well against tanks without any of its own.  Against
>heavy positions, however, the firepower and armor of a tank gives it a distinct
>advantage over the helicopters more limited missile weapons and light armor.

	The problem here is, how can you guarantee air superiority?  The
massive scale of air supports you mentioned requires not only local air
superiority, but overall air supremacy, in order to operate without
oppositions.  Gaining that is not easy, nor insured.  And even then, infantry
AA weapons can still inflict a substantial casualty to the attacking crafts.
	Another factor to consider is cost.  It is much cheaper to manufacture,
maintain, and supply tanks than it is for aircrafts/helicopters.  Granted, air
force provide lots of firepower, but they do so at a higher cost.  Armors
represent a more economic option.  Given the limited military budgets, many
commanders prefer the tank, which comes in greater numbers.  And with greater
numbers, you can spread your forces to cover a wider area, or have them respond
to more threats.
	Air units are also more prone to be affected by adverse weather.  A
constant gale can ground most of your aircrafts and helicopters, but have much
less impacts on tanks.
	On the subject of anti-tank missiles.  Those same missiles can be used
against APCs too.  With the thinner armor those vehicles possess, they would
suffer even greater loses.

>But then again, what about tomahawk missiles and smart bombs?  If they can hit
>within a few feet of the target, they can be much more effective as artillery
>than the tank can be at point-blank range.

	Cost again will be a major obstacle.  It is just plain uneconomic to
use a Tomahawk missle to wipe out an enemy position, when a couple of rounds
from a tank will do the job.
	
>With improved hand-held anti-tank weapons, even a tanks ability to kil
>infantry would come into doubt.  A helicopter can use its machineguns,
>rockets, or bombs (especially bombs with fragmentation or incendiary
>submunitions) to hit infantry and 'run for the hills' -- literally.

	Endurance is also something to be considered about.  A helicopter can
only stay on in the action for so long, before it runs out of ammunitions or
fuel.  Tanks can remain on the scene for a much longer period of time before
such needs.  A stationary aircraft/helicopter is called a target or wreckage,
depending on the situation.  Whereas a stationary tank represents a presence,
a threat, even if only on the psychological level, to your enemy.
	If tanks are really that useless, then why are we investing so much
on different ways to kill them?  Wouldn't this very fact says something about
the role of tanks in military planning?


					Chadwick
					Sheeta "the Elf"