HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
		<1992Nov21.021538.18281@oz.plymouth.edu> <7p11tvl@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 19:11:04 GMT

cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
>Hmm...  Intriguing concept.  What happens if the modified result from the
>dice rolls moves you over or under the maximum results?

Well, in reality there is no max (it's more like a limit in Calculus),
but I think the game should have one.  I'm thinking of making a scale
to go beyond the max on a temporary basis.  That is, you can, on
occasion, do so well at something that you've reached a level that no
human can maintain as a regular skill.  Ever see a picture of Willie
Mays' most famous catch?  Not even he could do that all the time -
though he was a Super outfielder (I'm thinking of going now with
Average, Good, Great, Super) on a regular basis.  That catch was a
Super+4 catch - he might never have been able to do it again.

So if you go off the scale, you do Super+1, Super+2, etc. - but you
can't upgrade a skill or attribute to those levels, unless you *are*
superhuman.

>Well, it's definitely a SIMPLE concept and easy to learn.  BUT it's very
>counter-intuitive for a GM to come up with stuff on the fly.  

??? I don't see why you say this.  What do you mean?

>It's also
>very limited, because the results are limited to the seven results that 
>the stats/skills are defined as.

True, true.  Playtesting will see if we need to expand the attribute
range.  I suppose we could go with the familiar 2-19 range that many
games have, but I like the concept of relating things to words.

>Will have to think on this concept a bit more before I can give a final
>opinion, but you definitely get marks for creative dice conventions!

Thanks!

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg - "modularity"
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
	<1992Nov14.224643.29631@alf.uib.no>
	<1992Nov16.154707.9252@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:51:23 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Nov 92 15:47:07 GMT, tao@truffle.Princeton.EDU (Terry Tao)
>>>>> said:

	Terry> However, it looks like you are all striving for
	Terry> something monstrously complicated, super flexible, and
	Terry> in the end, completely futile.  If you want some sort

Well, everything you say except futile. It's very easy to say 'This
can't be done' - but I don't agree. We already see some progress,
there are just so many good ideas out there. The faq is growing all
the time. 

	Terry> system gives you an extra +5% to hit, but in the other
	Terry> system you are using 6 sided dies and you can't add 5%,
	Terry> or you don't know what happens if you use the
	Terry> Dodge-dodge-parry option, and so on, then you just get

Hide method behind information. In other words - the modules intersect
through information that is independent of the methods used to create
it. I am convinced this will work. It's simple. 

	Terry> can see there will be some problems there.


	Terry> scores": I mean, if one person has Strength, and
	Terry> another doesn't have that Attribute but has Fitness

There will be a hieriarchical statistic set, where you choose what
level of detail to use. The basic (4-5-6-7-8) stats are equal and used
by all.

	Terry> problem.  I'd say you use the Darksword system as a
	Terry> starting point: it's almost babyishly simple, but every

Don't think so. 

-Magnus
From: jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: net.rpg: stats - solution to Build/racial factors?
Keywords: net.rpg, stats
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:29:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Considering the rather awkward attribute Build/Frame, I thought (once
again, in the bus:) that mayhap it was better of if it was split in two.
(I have to remind you that the stat names here are not official ones,
and probably not even too accurate - feel free to fabricate more
elaborate and appropriate ones. I hope these names are enough for me to
make myself understood, however...)

Let's assign heights and weights a number from a scale relative to the
"official" stats. Then we would have the basic physical properties
(primary stats)

Frame = Height (racial average +- 30%?)
Build = Weight (racial average +- 50%?)
Fitness = fitness (% of maximum efficiency?)
Health = racial average +- 50%? (I think this should be categorized
         as a primary stat, because it is not a derivative of the
         other primary ones..?)

This would split the awkward Build stat into two distinct properties
everyone does possess (the same grounds Build was originally chosen.)
This split would also preserve the concept of static/active muscle
ratio: while I used to think it would be a racial property (50%-50% for
humans,) now it becomes standard issue depending on the racial averages
of Frame and Build, and the weighted average of Frame & Build would
replace the old Build * racial factor as follows:

Strength  = (Height + 2*Weight) / 3 * Fitness
Agility   = (2*Height + Weight) / 3 * Fitness

The idea here is to say that a lot of muscle in a weak skeletal
structure don't give great strength (there's a limit the bones can
handle); neither does a lot of muscle in a heavy-boned creature give
high agility (the muscles needed to operate a heavy skeletal frame are
more towards strength than speed.) This concept would seem to fit rather
well from a mouse to an elephant - if the heights and weights are scaled
properly to the range that can be compared to other stat values.

So that's them secondary physical stats. These would be attributes,
then, I suppose:

Fatigue   = (Agility  + Health) / 2 (short term fatigue) \_ one and
Endurance = (Strength + Health) / 2 (long  term fatigue) /  the same?
Life      = (Weight   + Health) / 2 (or call them Hit Points if you wish)

Move      = a mix of Strength, Agility, and racial modifiers (short
            legs of Dwarves, and similar differences in body build are
            not very easy to implement in the stats...)

Hmm. This would expand the primary stats from four to six... The mental
ones are a bit harder to elaborate, but perhaps enlightenment shall come
upon me :) (Though I don't think that there will be more than six
primary stats - the secondary ones, and attributes, are the ones
requiring thought.)

-- 
               Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
       University of Helsinki, Dept. of Paranormal Investigations
           "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: net.rpg and setting
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:51:02 GMT

In article <1e3mklINNjge@gap.caltech.edu>, frankm@cco.caltech.edu (Frank Miskevich) writes:
|> 
|> Greetings All,
|> 	I've really enjoyed reading the discussion of the proposed net
|> rpg, yet halfway through the 100+ articles I felt that the positions
|> were already well stated.  One aspect of the game or games that was
|> not covered well was the idea of setting. As somebody pointed out (I

Ive always thought that more work should be put into working out
different fantasy cultures.  Most of the FRPGs I have seen use a
Tolkien-like 'medievil England' culture.  There has been a lot of
religions bandied about, and this is good, but most of them are 'god of
Storm, god of fertility, god of death' type religions.  

What about a non-medievel England culture?  The obvious thing then is to
go straight to an Middle Eastern or Far Eastern culture, and this has
been done before as well...how about something truly different, not
based on a historical Earthly culture?  difficult, but could be very
interesting.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (I Need a Life)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Make a net.rpg newsgroup!
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:27:17 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: periprism.ecst.csuchico.edu

Jonatan Kutchinsky writes:
>Why don't you make a net.rpg newsgroup, where you can discuss this subject?
>It would spare readers that are less interested in this particular project
>from reading through several pages of article titles. It also seems to me
>that this discussion could be going on almost permanently.

I beg to differ.  This group was nothing close to active for some time,
so this topic being a) completely within the genre and b) not of 
sufficient bandwidth to warrant a new group should be continued, IMPO.

Also, the mere existence of a 'dead calm' period should indicate that
this topic *has* not gone on forever.  However, I have noted that the
articles on this topic have all had 'net.rpg' in the subject (incl.
this one)  Mayhaps you can learn to use a kill file?

-- 
	VIRGO (Aug 23 - Sept 22)
You are the logical type and hate disorder.  This nitpicking is
sickening to your friends.  You are cold and unemotional and sometimes
fall asleep while making love.  Virgos make good bus drivers.
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Random vs. Point Alloc CharGen
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:15:03 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

> Question:  does Legacy have you generate anything randomly other than
> stats?

Let's see: attributes (part random, part allocation); some physical
characteristics; some history (some choice allowed); education and careers
(whether you enter, and how well you do in a career), and a few minor things,
like savings, special training programs, military awards, etc.

What is random in Legacy character generation are those things that people
normally have no choice in.  You can't choose your parents' occupations, your
height, how dextrous you are, etc.  You can choose to apply for a certain
education program, but whether or not you get accepted is not your choice.

Legacy's system attempts to model real life; PA attempts to allow gamers to
live in daydreams (where everything is how they want it).  I have no
objections to people preferring the latter, but I don't want to be forced to
use it because *Andrew Bell* prefers that system.

> Different issue -- now you're talking the rules system.  I say any *player*
> can use randomness with any point generation system,...

Yes, and you can use a metal-cased modem to pound in a nail...but it doesn't
work as well as a tool designed for that task.  Essentially you seem to be
saying "design the system for type A gamers (who prefer balanced PA the way
*Andrew Bell* likes it), and let everyone else make do with unsatisfactory
kludges."

To look at it from my perspective, how would you like it if I suggested that
the game be designed with random generation, "because any *player* can choose
values where dice would normally be rolled, to create a character the GM will
approve"?

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: leet@acsu.buffalo.edu (Brian D. Leet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg:  separate skills and stats altogether
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:21:49 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <KETIL.92Nov18164612@sandel.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
<Previous arguments deleted to save space...>
>
>Again, I would make the distinction between Talents that affect your
>ability to learn skills, and Attributes that affect your ability to
>perform them.

<Explanation of system deleted..>

It appears to me that you are using the word talents to describe cognitive
or mental activities and acuity, while you use stats to describe physical
ones.  I understand your reasoning behind this distinction but I think it 
is an arbitrary one.  Some skills do not fit the above pattern and will 
therefor pose problems (ie mental arithmatic).  Not distinguishing mental
from physical solves this problem (IMHO see my other posting on the subject).

>There may be reason to add a few points here and there, I 'lost'
>Spike's posting, however, I feel that Talents should be grouped in a
>similar way to the above.  This will make it simple for people who
>desire less detail to use the 'groups' (cons, psyche, inst) whenever
>one of the more detailed stats are required. (I.e. use psyche instead
>of will)

It looks like there is general consensus that using a "layered" approach 
is the best thing to do and let each individual campaign choose level of 
detail in each area.  I know I am certainly in favor of it.

>This is just a suggestion, feel free to take it to pieces.

Gladly :-).

>POINT #2
>
>I don't really see the point of Object Orientation, I mean, ok, you
>define the same stats for a Human as a Dog.  This works out fine, I
>suppose.  Now use the same stats for a shotgun. 

If you are trying to say that this is a silly pursuit and that there is 
really no need for the stat system to handle all objects but only the 
player objects and other thinking beings I agree.  (There will always be
an exception to the rule of course).

>-ketil
>
>--
> = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
> = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can't, I don't have a warhead, got any to spare?      |
						      |
						    HONK

						Brian
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:34:49 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <41129@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>	Probem #1 with classes/careers/lifepaths when dealing with a
>generic rpg:
>	Imagine it.  You've got to deal with people from the stone
>age all the way up to inredibly futuristic worlds.  You need to
>include alien races, etc.  You must deal with careers from all these
>times.

Well, since this is a public domain game, having to get different rule
sets for each genre isn't as bad as it is for a commercial publication.

>	Sure, you can go for the "generic career" path, but then you
>might as well just tell people to use PA however they wish.

The reason for a career path is two-fold.  First, it gives the character
a bit of a sense of history -- most games I've played in, I've never
had a strong sense of what the character did the day before the first
adventure, much less the years before.  Second, one problem with point
allocation systems is that they break down at the extremes or give you
the opportunity for "Johnny one-skill."  As long as there is a career
path generation system, with a suggestion of GM approval required for
any new career path, you don't need that many careers.

>	Problem #2

>	How do you deal with various "power levels"?  There's a huge
>difference between a super hero and Jack the Lawyer.

I don't understand how this is a career path problem per se, unless
"becoming a superhero" is a career path...  However, assuming it is:

One idea is to make the career path(s) "cost", at least if it
layered on top of a point allocation system.  Career paths generally
dictate skill improvements for time spent in a given profession.  A
person in a given line (say, the Superheroism trade) will have fewer
leftover points relative to his lawyer friend, who can then "buy"
Schwartzeneggerisation from the time he spent on his Stairmaster...

Or, if you want random generation, "wimpier" professions adjust the number
of dice to be rolled for the stats.

Yes, you get the unusual effect that your peasant adventurer has much
better stats/fewer disads/more advantages than the 10 year veteran
mercenary, but that's an inevitable consequence of character "balancing,"
and will happen with any point allocation system as well.

>	As in GURPS, how are you going to deal with 25 pt. normals
>all the way up to 500pt. "four color" superheroes?

In the same game?

In most cases, the career of the 500pt superhero has little impact
relative to his/her superpowers, so I'm not sure what problem you
see.  Can you be more clear?

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
From: jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:20:49 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb) writes:

:
>view ambidexterity as having a range of values, eg. -20 to 0,
>representing how much of a percentage disadvantage you have with your
>off hand).

I also think that it should be relative to Agility. When Agility
increases the off-hand penalty decreases (ie the hand-eye coordination
develops.) Not an on-off -thing.

<Sorry, I lost your name> writes:

>>This means that generally stats should not have to do with such things as:
>>shape of body, attractiveness of character, presence or absence of some 
>>feature.  They should instead reflect what forces that entity can affect opun
>>their environment such as strength, understanding etc.

I agree on this. What we need is a broader, less-specific category above
the stat area.

-- 
               Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
            University of Helsinki, Dept. of Monkey Business
                                 --O--
           "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Stars
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:10:15 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
Organization: GE Power Generation

Have you tried CIS's Space forums?

Spike
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Random vs. Point Alloc CharGen
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:29:39 GMT

I think we just have to live with the fact that different people want
to create their characters in different ways - net.rpg will allow each
player to create the character in the way he wants.

A more interesting problem is what to do with munckins - should the
character generation rules prevent the creation of a super-powerful
character? Should there be balancing-features like in TW2000? 

Or should we just let them play powerful characters. And hope that
they have fun, or if they don't, that they will create a Real
character the next time around.

-Magnus
From: jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats [based on skills]
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:55:24 GMT

In article <20NOV199220532891@gergo.tamu.edu>, carl@gergo.tamu.edu (Carl D. Perkins) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.194427.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes...
>>
[my view (that if you have a high stat, it must be manifested somewhere, in 
at least one skill) deleted.]

> This is clearly nonsense. Someone who has never practiced the "agility
> increasing skills" could still have a high inate agility. They simply have
> not spent the time to learn to use it. Say someone like a bookworm type who
> has never played any sports, but who could learn them rapidly and easily if
> he became so inclined to do so.

I think the problem here is that we're using different meanings of the word 
"stat".  When I say stat, I mean the up-to-date, current level of ability.  
When you say stat (I think) you mean the genetic, instinctive potential for 
ability.  In other words, if my character has high agility, it is because 
*at* *this* *moment* he is very agile; if your character has high agility,
his body type, genes, etc. allow for him to become agile easily, to easily 
become good at running, tennis, dodging, etc.  I see now that if you do 
look at my post with your definition, you might think it nonsense.

By my definition, your bookworm type would not be at all agile.  If he 
can't dodge, run, play tennis, [etc]..., or skin dive well, he is not good 
at any action involing agility.  Therefore, he has low agility.

> --- Carl

Robert Bridson (using the account of jbridson)
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: damage system for Steffan's SLUG
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:41:12 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <1992Nov18.131410.954@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu
(Steffan O'Sullivan) wrote:

> For things such as guns, each gun would be rated as a certain
> Strength.  A small pistol would be Strength 4, maybe, while larger
> pistols would strength 5, and so on.  (High tech weapons are my weak
> point, and someone else would have to quantify this.)  This strength has
> nothing to do with the user's strength - anyone can shoot a pistol, even
> someone of Inferior (2) strength.

I assume you're ignoring recoil?
__
Spike

"I would shelter you, and keep you in light
 but I can only teach you
 night vision" - Suzanne Vega
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Attributes
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:55:07 GMT

This post made me think.

The stats tree will be very hard to represent as a pure tree. All
these things are interconnected. You could start at one edge and get
trough it, but you can't represent it as a tree. 

For example, even though stats like Kinesthetic and Spacial are below
Intelligence, they would influence Agility (or the other way around).
When you calculate your stats, you just follow all the lines. 

INT	Intelligence	[  ]  	( KIN, SPA, ... )
.KIN	Kinesthetic	[  ]	( ... )
.SPA	Spacial		[  ]	( ... )
PHY	Physical	[  ]	( AGI, STR)
.AGI	Agility		[  ]	( INT.KIN, INT.SPA, DEX, ... )
..DEX	Dexterity	[  ]	( ... )
.STR	Strength	[  ]	( ... )

( This is just a sketch - a lot is missing and this probably has no
  similarity to what it will look like some day. )

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats 
Reply-To: fks1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:50:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221344.3370@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>
>Or maybe.. (thought) you could start with the skills, choosing which
>skills you wanted. Then those would give their points to connected
>stats, which would keep pushing the points upward till they hit the
>main stats. I think this is a more user-friendly (!!) approach - as
>the player chooses what the character is good at, what he can do, what
>he has done - and then you determine his stats, instead of determining
>stats and then getting skills, maybe some you didn't want, some you
>wanted you can't get enough of etc.

This sounds pretty interesting (certainly original, i think) but if
you work this backwards by having a character pick skills which then
effect the related stats, i don't think you model life to well.  I 
mean that means that the more skill you have the more you are better
at it.  i.e.  say Joe takes fencing.  If he takes it at a low level
he has a low Agility (or whatever), but if he takes it high he has
a high agility.  This doesn't make too much sense.  Why can't Joe
have a high AGI but be a poor fencer?  
>
 
>
>-Magnus
>
>PS Good work! DS


-- 
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<<<
"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