HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Change
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:35:18 GMT

I've already changed something in my first post.  Any quality that
resembles an Attribute is Average unless otherwise specified, but an
quality that resembles a Skill starts at Poor, and needs to be raised
to Average.  The GM is the final arbiter on what constitutes an
Attribute.

This makes more sense to me - does anyone think skills should even start
at Inferior?

Also, the GM may rule certain skills are treated as a superpower - that
is, the default status is "non-existent" rather than Poor.  An example
would be Karate or Nuclear Physics.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Skills trees
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:39:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.005032.11830@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:43:12 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David
>>>>>> Lamb) said:
>	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.
>

The issue is: when you spread experience up the tree, you improve
parent skills, which in turn improves ALL sibling/cousin/etc. skills.
Thus: some root skill R has children (say) R.1 to R.5, each of which
has children .1 to (say) .5 in turn.  You advance in R.1.1, which in
turn causes you to advance in R.1, which in turn advances R.  Now you
wind up improving all 5 R.x and 25 R.x.y skills.  So what started as
"improve 1 skill" winds up requiring that you (potentially) change
numbers in 31 related skills.  The only thing that saves you when you
do it "by hand" is that you can ignore sibling skills in which you
haven't sunk any experience - they default to the value for their
parent.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: net.rpg.freeform: Action resolution
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
		<1992Nov18.132534.1650@oz.plymouth.edu>
		<loren.211@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:09:18 GMT

loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
>
>The mode is the most common value in a distribution. In a 3d6 distribution 
>10 and 11 are the most common values, and they are equally likely, so they 
>are the mode. A modal distribution is simply a distribution that has some 
>values that are more likely than others.

Cool.  Just what I want.

>The more important thing is 
>if you play out all the cards in your hand you're out. You can't get more 
>until your next action. If someone attacks you in the meantime you're in 
>trouble. This means you don't always want to play out all the cards in your 
>hand.

I'm a tad confused, sorry.  Let's take a sample combat so I can
understand what you're proposing:

Sue (NPC) and Joe are fighting.  Sue has the initiative.

Sue has six cards in her hand (Question: does skill level = hand size?)
Joe has five.  Joe plays first, I believe you said.

He leads his high card, hoping to score a hit right away: an 8.  Sue
ripostes with her high card, a 10.  I assume, since low initiative
plays last card, that this is a contest of qualities, and not just a
parry, so they go to the damage determination stage, whatever we hammer
that out to be.  In other words, Joe got hit.

Questions:  
Is this one complete round?
When do they get new cards?

>I have another idea that might not make such big values as the face card 
>rule above.
>
>Each player plays single cards, or can play a meld. Melds would include 
>two or more of a number, or a straight (3 minimum), or a straight flush 
>(3 card minimum). 2 of a kind (or 3 or 4 etc) would be counted by adding up 
>the cards (straight pip count, and face cards are 10), as would a straight, 
>while a straight flush would count for double points.
>
>Example:
>Henry plays 2 8s, for a total of 16.
>Jimbob plays the 2,3,4 of hearts, for 9 points doubled, or 18.
>Tricia, the GM, defends for the monster with two Kings, for a total of 20.

I like this much better than the face card bit.  I notice skill isn't
added in here - is that because it determines the number of cards in each
hand?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Post 2 of 2
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
		<1992Nov17.222836.1@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:25:34 GMT

millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>
>You're doing this to get a bell curve, but it seems to me that a bell
>curve isn't as important as a modal probability distribution. If you're
>going to use cards anyway, why not simplify a little more, and get rid
>of the bell curve for a more natural (with cards) modal curve?

Welcome, Loren!  However, you've lost me here.  Since this is r.g.design,
and math is essential to many game designs, please expand on what you
mean by a modal curve.  This term is not in my vocabulary.

While it's true that I'm fond of a bell curve, note that I didn't use a
really classic one, such as a 1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1 distribution.  This is
because I like the curve to be flatter near the middle.

>Mix two decks of cards together. Every player draws a certain number of
>cards for their hand. The worst initiative goes first. 

I take it initiative is just another quality, right?  So if a character
didn't define it, it's Average, right?

>Pip cards are
>counted by the pips on their faces. Face cards are worth ten and allow a
>second card to be played on top of them. Aces count as face cards if
>desired, or they can be played for one point and allow the player to
>discard the rest of the hand and refill. When your hand is empty you
>can't play any more cards, but before you start your next action you can
>refill it from the deck.

Do you mean for one side to play one card, then the other side plays
one card (or two if playing a face card), and that's the end of the
round?  Or does the round continue until someone can't play anymore?
BTW, this makes face cards VERY potent, and there are a lot of them!  I
fear this would devalue combat skill too much.  Could someone play a
face card, and then as a second card, another face card, which would
allow yet another card to be played?  Yikes!  That gets into very high
numbers quickly, which makes the skill level less important.

>To figure out skills add ability score to the card points. This works
>for opposed skills too, no need to subtract. Just add and compare. You
>might need to stretch out the 1-7 point scale since this scale is wider,
>but it depends on how important you think luck should be.

I've often wondered about the math of games where you add your skill to
the random result generated.  Although many games use this - even some
wargames - this seems to more luck dependent than skill dependent to
me.  I'll try to analyze the math on this, but if anyone else can do it
quickly and easily, please do so!  I haven't had a math class in ovre
20 years . . .

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Terminology
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 22:36:26 GMT

Here's my latest offering of a set of standard adjectives.  As a test
of how good they are, I've simply listed them reverse-alphabetically.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to put them in either
ascending or descending order - your choice.  If these are good words,
this task should be easy and obvious!

Terrible
Superb
Poor
Mediocre
Great
Good
Fair

I've decided to change Super to Superb because we'll need Super for the
superhuman scale.

Any comments on these?  Anyone have any trouble arranging them?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg:Stats vs. skills
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 00:43:45 GMT

Concerning skills vs. stats

This is really ketil's idea, but I'll promote it. He thinks there
should be a fundamental difference between those 'stats' used to learn
skills, and those used to perform general tasks.

I am prone to agree.

Maybe we could create those used to learn skills (talents?), first -
and then use those to process the skill-tree from the bottom up. I am
aware that the talents would be mostly intellectual, while the
high-level skills would often be physical. I don't think that is a
problem as long as we know what is what.

Now, my point of hestitation is; aren't there some facets of a
characters that have influence both on his ability to learn skills and
his ability to perform them? Concentration for example?

What do you people think?

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: musing on the stat tree
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 02:23:37 GMT

That was one big post.

Only one thing I wanted to comment.

I still think all race-spesific modification should stay in the
race-method, so you can add races, change races, remove races etc.
without changing all the skills. 

Hiding method behind information again.

-Magnus
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Post 2 of 2
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>While it's true that I'm fond of a bell curve, note that I didn't use a
>really classic one, such as a 1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1 distribution.  This is
>because I like the curve to be flatter near the middle.
...
>I've often wondered about the math of games where you add your skill to
>the random result generated.  Although many games use this - even some
>wargames - this seems to more luck dependent than skill dependent to
>me.  I'll try to analyze the math on this, but if anyone else can do it
>quickly and easily, please do so! 

	Well, Ars Magica is the main one I know about. That is darn 
simple: just take a d10 and add it to skill. With a stress die you 
complicate things a little more (1's mean roll again and double the 
result, 0's give a chance of botch), but it is still pretty simple. 

	As far as being dominated by luck rather than skill - that can 
easily be scaled away. Ars Magica does have luck very dependent. For a 
variant I ran, however, I just doubled all skill numbers. Now skill is 
more important with respect to attributes and luck. 
	You just have to vary the size of your die roll and/or the 
size of your adds and you control the effect luck has. If you really 
want, you can make the roll a bell curve - but I don't really see the 
point. 

	What I like about these systems is that they do not give the 
impression of generic 'success' and 'failure', as roll-above/below-skill 
systems tend to produce, I have noticed. When players rolls *against* 
their skill, they tend to think either 'I made it' or 'I blew it'. When 
they *add* to skill, they tend to think 'Is that good enough?' 
	I think the latter is preferrable, obviously. I like de-
emphasizing the die roll, and emphasizing skill and difficulty. The 
Ars Magica system, in particular, makes the die roll quick and simple, 
and easy for the GM to estimate difficulties. (For example, an average, 
unskilled person trying a task will have an average result of about 5.5, 
the same as his roll - this is very easy to remember and intuitive.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | "The future's not the same anymore."
Columbia University         | "What the hell's wrong with my langauge."
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (I Need a Life)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Nick Janow and Andrew Bell
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:45:05 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu


Can you please take this to .advoc?  
-- 
One seldom sees a monument to a committee.
From: fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Post 2 of 2
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:26:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov19.012619.29328
Reply-To: fks1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <loren.211@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren .132534.1650@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>
>I have another idea that might not make such big values as the face card 
>rule above.
>
>Each player plays single cards, or can play a meld. Melds would include 
>two or more of a number, or a straight (3 minimum), or a straight flush 
>(3 card minimum). 2 of a kind (or 3 or 4 etc) would be counted by adding up 
>the cards (straight pip count, and face cards are 10), as would a straight, 
>while a straight flush would count for double points.
>
>Example:
>Henry plays 2 8s, for a total of 16.
>Jimbob plays the 2,3,4 of hearts, for 9 points doubled, or 18.
>Tricia, the GM, defends for the monster with two Kings, for a total of 20.

Larry plays a full house, aces over kings and cleaves the monster in twain.
; > 

>
>-- 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++23
>Loren Miller              LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
>Shoes are the most basic prerequisite for liberty


-- 
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<<<
"It is human nature, I suppose to be futile and ridiculous"
"If the windmill should prove to formidable, I may see what can be done
           with the wind."            -Scaramouche (fks1@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: net.rpg -- some thoughts
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1992Nov15.215228.18343@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
	<1992Nov16.011050.10431@alf.uib.no>
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:09:17

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 92 01:10:50 GMT, magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad) said:

>>>>> On 15 Nov 92 21:52:28 GMT, jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen) said:

Juha-Matti> (ie.  how much of your build is towards strength/bone
Juha-Matti> structure, and how much towards speed [there are specific
Juha-Matti> terms for the things I mean, I just don't know them :(
Juha-Matti> Something like aerobic and anaerobic muscle]) - humans
Juha-Matti> perhaps 50%-50%, dwarves 80%-20%, and elves 40%-60% etc...

Magnus> This is interesting. I'll mention it in the faq. Btw I think
Magnus> we should first decide on how to represent a human, and then
Magnus> look at what we have to do to make that work for other races.

I don't think any of the stats should be relative to the others (i.e.
a Troll with strength 53 is stronger than a gnome strength 53), but
absolute.

This means that (say) carrying capacity is determined only from
strength, not race, build etc.  Otherwise we'd need a *lot* of tables
or formulae to determine how much weight to put on each
creature/object before collapse, wouldn't we.

You could still do as J-M suggest, but why not do it by having two
stats for strength, i.e. strength
			   /\
			  /  \
		      speed  endurance

Or something like that?

And let a dwarf have SP 20 but END 60, the elf have SP 40, and END 20,
while the average human could have SP 35 END 40.  Or something.

-ketil
--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Attributes
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:08:50 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

(Spike) writes:

>This is (yet another) attribute proposal. Yes, I
>know people seem committed to Form/Fit/Int/Instinct,
>but without an alternate proposal, developing this 
>system would be like an election in the pre-glasnost
>USSR (one candidate, one vote!).

Agreed. One suggestion is always a one suggestion, and thus limited in
scope.

>Howard Gardener is a researcher working at one of
>the big east-coast schools (Harvard, perhaps? I don't
>recollect exactly) on the nature of human intelligence.
>He proposed that what we lump under the broad label 
>"Intelligence" is actually a collection of related, but
>different intelligences: Kinesthetic, Linguistic, Mathematic
>Spatial, Musical, Knowledge of Self and Knowledge of
>Others. I have always felt that this would make a good
>basis for a roleplaying game. Change Mathematic to 
>Logical, Musical to a more generic Aesthetic, and 
>rename the last two to the less-clunky Self-Awareness
>(or even Intuition) and Social, respectively.

Yahoo! Now *this* is exactly what I've been looking for! This would also
fit exactly in the scheme Frame/fitness/etc. I didn't come up with these
separate mental entities, because I didn't have a firm picture of the
division in mind. And what defines a person is the mental, more than the
physical, attributes.

I also agree on the summing up (too many closely-related stats would
probably break the mechanics.) Logical, Aesthetic, and Awareness would
sound good - perhaps the Social would be better off as a combination of
skills?

Then, if so wished, these could be split up to the secondary stats of
Mathematical, Linguistic, etc. Sounds good.

>The way I would use them would be to relate skills to
>various intelligences. High int in an appropriate area 
>would allow characters to learn those skills more 
>quickly. The logical way to do it would be to have each 
>skill controlled by two separate intelligences: Shooting =
>Kinesthetic + Spatial; Architect = Spatial + Logical; Fast-
>Talk = Linguistic + Social.

Aye. I'm not sure whether my previous post ever made it (the line broke
before the esc-z,) but I'd also say this is the way to go. We'd need to
begin thinking about the skills' division into categories...

>Ironically, although I didn't realize it when I was reading
>Gardener, Aftermath has a system very similar to this.
>Go figure.

>Spike
> 
-- 
               Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
       University of Helsinki, Dept. of Paranormal Investigations
           "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: E-Mailing me
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:07:22 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

Sorry, my header doesn't allow e-mail because I
*can't* get e-mail here, only access the news. If you
want to send me e-mail through the Internet, send it
my CIS account: 70750,443. I'll be happy to 
receive it.

Also, if you don't mind a ld call, you can leave me 
mail on SJ Games' Illuminati BBS. They're in Austin
TX (obviously); the number is 512-447-4449. My 
userid there is also Spike; it's number 152.

Finally, a bit of bio. Since I sometimes make 
rather inflammatory comments, I wouldn't want 
to be accused of hiding behind a mask of anonymity.
My real name is Tim Keating, I live in Galway NY, and
I work for General Electric (headers don't lie!). I have
written a few gaming supplements: *Jigsaw 
Incomplete* is an adventure which appeared in GURPS
Cyberpunk Adventures, and I have an adventure
coming out (hopefully!) in the spring HERO, entitled
"Murder in Stronghold." That one will appear in 
Champions Presents Vol. 2.

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: bshsiung@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Bernard Hsiung)
Subject: damage system for Steffan's SLUG
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:41:42 GMT

Having designed a half dozen game systems in my time, I must admit that I
appear to be moving away from the complicated, realism-heavy world simulators
to the simpler, abstract systems in RPG gaming.  (That's not to say I wouldn't
play or purchase the more complicated systems.  Almost every system has some
good ideas.)  At any rate, I've been more interested of late in looking at
campaigns and well-developed, self-consistent backgrounds...

That said, I applaud Steffan's initiative to outline a freeform system and
declare myself the second member of the net.rpg.freeform splinter forum.
In the meantime, I'll continue to observe the rest of the group.  *smile*

Thus, I humbly offer the following suggestions for S.L.U.G.:

A simple damage system:

     Since we're using a deck of cards already, we might as well get some use
out of the other cards.  Whenever a character is Hurt, give a player a card
not in use (two cards if the character is Very Hurt).  Each card is a -1
penalty on all of the character's skills.  If a character gets four cards, he
or she is Dead.  Whether this is a permanent condition depends on the genre.

     Notice that when a character is Hurt (or Very Hurt) will depend on the
character and is left to the GM to decide.  Superman will probably be less
susceptible to injury than, say, a house cat.

     Healing is also up to the GM:  take away cards as desired.

     If we really want, we can incorporate exhaustion into this system by
differentiating between face-up and face-down cards:  face-up cards represent
fatigue sufficient to cause a -1 penalty; face-down cards represent wounds as
before.  When a character is sufficiently fatigued, award the player an
appropriate number of cards to be placed face-up.  When taking a wound, only
give the player a new card if all the cards that he or she has are face-down
already.  Otherwise, simply turn one of the face-up cards face-down.  When you
have four cards, your character is Unconscious.  If all four cards are
face-down, your character is Dead.
 
Bernie Hsiung (bshsiung@eecs.umich.edu)
"In theory, theory and practice are the same."
 In practice, they aren't."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:11:14 EST
From: <RDT111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject:    net.rpg: admin

     I'm going to try to get a group started to start putting down solid
rules for a net.rpg.  I am looking for volunteers to join a commitee
to write a net.rpg.  If you want to join it just mail me.  This rpg would
probably be multi-genre,  we (the commitee) would make up the rules and
periodicly post what we have acomplished to the net.  There might also
be some discussion what rules we should make on the net.
     Please send mail or post how you feel about this attempt.  If this
turn out to be what I hope it does it will replace most of the net.rpg
discussion currently on the net.

You can respond to me by replying to this note.  My email address is
Rdt111@psuvm.psu.edu

Robert Thompson
The opinions expressed in this article are not neccisarily those
of Penn State.