HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psavoie@terranet.cts.com (Pierre Savoie)
Subject: Re:  Bill Clinton and gaming
Organization: People-Net [terranet], Thornhill Ontario 
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 08:56:15 GMT

    You may have a point.  But since some gamers have a social conscience as
pertains to the public image of gaming, such messages could be diverted not
just to alt.censorship but I think there is a rec.games.frp. sub-group devoted
to that topic that is in the works.
    Rec.games.frp is more for game rules discussions and commentary.  If you
say so...

UUCP: zoo.toronto.edu!generic!terranet!psavoie
ARPA: generic!terranet!psavoie@zoo.toronto.edu
INET: psavoie@terranet.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
From: 10597182@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (JASON BELL)
Subject: Re: GM RPG computer aides for RoleMaster/MERP
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:09:08 GMT

>
>If you study the weapon tables, you'll discover a number of interesting things.
>I did a quick study, and came to the conclusion that each column could be
>parameterized by a series of values:
>
>1)	Base number where it starts doing damage
>2)	Increment of damage per +1 on the die (generally fractional, so
>	that it takes multiple increments to get a +1 damage)
>3)	Base number for each level of critical (A, B, C, D, or E)
>4)	Pattern of criticals (all Ps, PKPKPK..., etc.)
>
>This works out to about 10 numbers (depending upon how you encode the
>criticals). Since this is an algorithm rather than a repeat of the tables,
>it may or may not be copyright (I'm not claiming to know). In any case,
>it takes a lot less time to do this than to retype all the tables, should
>you decide to do this.
>
>Of course, this doesn't help with the critical tables...
>
>Curtis Scott
>

This is because the charts were computer generated in the first place.

Mephisto.
From: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Regarding Star Wars (was Re: regarding RIFTS)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:42:41 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <BssKFI.1qI@wpi.WPI.EDU> rparker@wpi.WPI.EDU (Richard E Parker) writes:
>
>	I think that it would help if people read the West End Games
>Star-Wars RPG books.  The Imperial Sourcebook proves extremely enlightening.
>Some people may want to pick up copies as it is more gospel than it would
>seem as many ships/vehicles/equipment that appears in the
>game actually appears in the "official" Heir to the Empire series.

That's partly because Timothy read the Star Wars RPG books and used them
as sources for "Heir to the Empire".

>	Storm-Troopers would seem to be more like elite death-commandoes than
>anything else.  You will notice that Imperial army soldiers don't fight with
>anywhere near that kind of ferocity.

Although I like the game, its books, and especially the Imperial Sourcebook,
I am not happy with their descriptions of Imperial stormtroopers.  I have
not seen Imperial army soldiers fight like stormtroopers in the films,
mainly because I have not seen Imperial army soldiers in the films.  Any
time there is fighting to be done, stormtroopers did it.  The only troops
dressed like West End's Imperial army soldiers were AT-AT crew (who don't
need to be as heavily armoured as stormtroopers, as their armour is the
vehicle); the only troops that I have seen which look like West End's
Imperial marines, alias Death Star troopers, were acting more like
security guards - they escorted Princess Leia to her detention cells
after stormtroopers had done the capturing, for example.  Despite
their descriptions of stormtroopers as elite, you'll note that the
ordinary stormtrooper has skills in line with the game's "standard
specialist" - all attributes at 2D, a few skills at 4D.

I also don't think that the desert version and the snowtrooper versions
are specialised elites.  Think about real life.  Think back to the TV
coverage of Desert Storm.  The soldiers there wore desert camouflage,
different to the uniforms you normally see.  Does that mean the troops
were specialised elite desert troops?  No.  They were regular troops,
who have been trained to fight in a variety of circumstances, and who
were equipped according to the mission.  IMHO snowtroopers are just
the same - regular stormtroopers with cold-weather armour.

>								They
>simply have no REASON to fight.  They would NEVER charge down a corridor
>into a repeating blaster.

That depends on who is behind them.  I would personally think twice about
charging at a repeat blaster, but I would think three times about not
doing so if Darth Vader was somewhere in the other direction. :-)
And no, I would not be the one to ask him to please do the remote
strangling trick on the Rebel gunners. :-)

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian   |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
From: trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
Subject: Re: Hero System damage
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:06:53 GMT

porterg@gems.vcu.edu writes:

>I've found that to be consistent at low-end damage in the Hero System 
>(firearms), you need to throw out any urge for "relativism".  In a system
>where 1d6K is a pistol and 5d6K a tank gun, a +1 makes a big difference.

Minor nit: Weapon damage isn't 'system'. It's world background. The fact
that it's for the 'real world' doesn't change that. It just makes errors
more obnoxious.

>It simply doesn't work if you say "well, if a 9mm is 1d6+1, then the more
>powerful .357 Magnum is 1 1/2d6 and a really big pistol is 2d6K"

>In my own personal conversion scale (using 3G^3), I have the following
>numbers for current weapons:

>[damages more or less similar to the book listing but more compressed]

I think the best way to fix this is to increase the upper end damage. The
book drastically underrates military weapons and armor. 20 Def (even
hardened) is ludicrous for a tank. 50 Def is probably more reasonable.
Tank guns, of course, should be studly enough to punch through that.

Earl Hubbell calculatated that a 6 Damage Class attack is about 3kJ, so
if you believe his numbers, you can use the 'factor of 2 per DC' rule
to figure damages. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well with 3G
because 3G's DV is more penetration than damage, and Hero doesn't
distinguish the two at all well. Nor does it have blow-through rules of
any kind.

>The only real problem is the variability you get with such a low number of
>dice.  It's the old "I rolled well, so my rifle goes through armor that should
>have stopped a .50 cal".  My house rule is that *average* damage is applied
>vs. armor, and you roll 1d6 for each 3 points that get through.

Most armor doesn't provide full protection everywhere, and most weapons
have less penetration if they hit at an angle. Of course, this sort of
overlaps the activation roll on armor... I'm not sure there is a good
answer without going into excessive detail.

>This means that for instance, a DEF 4 bulletproof vest will always stop the
>BODY from a 9mm hit, and we'll count blunt trauma as the STUN that gets
>through (can't have everything work out just right...).

But blunt trauma can do Body too. The suggestion that someone else made
of having kevlar convert some of the killing damage to normal damage
some of which is absorbed and the rest of which goes against PD is the
most realistic, but it makes things even more complicated.

Trip				|   Never be the first to believe
President, ECNG			|   Never be the last to deceive
(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)	|   Nobody's on nobody's side
				|			-_Chess_
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Hero System damage
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:01:25 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <max.714466895@crash> max@crash.cts.com (Max Callahan) writes:
>1) "A normal can destroy a car in minutes with his bare hands" A Normal
>(STR 10, SPD 2) does 2d6 normal damage, this means an average of 7 stun and 2
>body. Cars don't take stun so we can ignore it. Now, a honda prelude has 3 DEF
>this means that the average punch from a normal will do no damage to the car
>one punch in 36 will do 4 body (two sixs on two dice) this will then do one
>body to the honda, it has 15. Simple multiplication shows that it will take 
>the normal 540 punches to render the car inoperative, this will take him
>54 minutes. I invite any one who has a problem with this to hit a car 540 
>times and see if it will still run.

You forgot haymakers.

The haymaker does 3d6 normal damage.  Out of 216 possibilities, there are
51 ways of doing 4 body (48 with a six and two 2-5's, and 3 with two sixes and
a 1), 12 ways of doing 5 body, and 1 way of doing 6 body.  This means that
out of every 216 haymakers, he does 51+2*12+3*1=78 body.  Rounding up, he must
hit the car 42 times, on the average, in order to take it to 0 body.  This is
less than a tenth of the figure for 2d6 punches.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: marauder@diku.dk (Stephan Dahl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Legionaire
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:25:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

bmahony@neumann.une.edu.au (Brian Mahony) writes:


>Hi..
> Just wondering if anyone else gm's this game...
> I need any helpi can get....*im useless*
>  also are there any modules for sale ..(aus)
>  anyone got any home rules for this??

A fellow Legionnaire-keeper! I almost thought I was the only one! I'd be
delighted to help, of course.

It's a neat game, but if you're used to something more 'heroic' in the AD&D
style, be VERY careful... Legionnaire combat is LETHAL. Your average spike
rifle does 24 pts of damage, your average PC can stand 11. Ouch. Good hing
armor is as high-Tech as the weaponry. 

The universe is neat, gritty & bloody. You wouldn't want to live there, but
it's an excellent locale for dangerous adventures (No dragons, but Grav
Tanks does as much or more dam...). A big plus is the possibility for
playing TOG PCs - for the unwashed multitudes out on the .net, that's like
playing the storm troopers in Star Wars. You actually get to commit
atrocities, how neat! (Of course, only one of _my_ players would ever do a
thing like that - but he's a xenophobic, aggressive bastard, and not very
nice to humans either)

For a rookie GM, Legionnaire has the advantage that the PCs are probably all
military, one way or another, which gives a GM a good standard opening to
any adventure ("You are ordered to take and hold..."). Recalcitrant
characters, the CN types in AD&D, are simply court-martialed (hehe)! And if
the PC are TOGgies, they'll probably spend some time trying to get each
other court-martialed, for cowardice, insubordination, or just the heck of
it. TOG is not nice people (but then, neither are the Renegades - Did the
Star Wars rebels ever blow up shopping malls?).

I've written, and is currently playtesting with my favorite guinea-pigs...
sorry, players... Escort Duty, a Legionnaire scenario. It's on disk, so if
you want it, you can have it, subject to the usual CopyLeft. As a courtesy,
if you should decide to play it, I'll expect some kind of feedback (gee! You
get to be a playtester!).

>thanx in advance....
				Always welcome, and Hail Caesar!
				Stephan Dahl
				marauder@freja.diku.dk
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
From: psavoie@terranet.cts.com (Pierre Savoie)
Subject: Gygax
Organization: People-Net [terranet], Thornhill Ontario 
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:56:07 GMT

   It was also written somewhere that Gary Gygax was also an expert on
Communist China.  There was this simulation game he participated in, and he
played the part of China.  He *really* read up on the subject, in depth, and
was quite ready to play the part of Mao.  But the game never really took off.
   Too bad.  So if you happen to meet Gygax, keep off the topic of the Great
Leap Forward, the Four Modernizations, and all that other stuff.  At least it
got him thinking about the possible fun to be had in detailed simulation of a
character and...well...you know the rest.
   Yeah, it looks SOOOOO easy to play and even invent role-playing games--now
that you know what one is.  Give Gygax credit, and keep in mind that gaming
scuttlebutt against Gygax was calculated to help squeeze him out of further
royalties for AD&D.  Check out the hardcovers which say "this is a derivative
work from the 1st-edition AD&D", a way to deny a direct connection.  Since a
TSR committee wrote 2nd-ed. AD&D, and their company owns it, by this legal
denial of a direct connection Gygax gets no royalties from 2nd-ed.
   He's not really a petulant ogre, I think the strain of being followed
around by adoring pimply 14-year-old boys probably got to him.  And the
popularity of AD&D didn't really suit his basically introverted nature, having
graduated from the pimply 14-year-old boys himself.  Unless someone has a
specific "Gygax story" showing he's awful, I think it's just a case of
unwanted fame.  Like, what if YOU invented some doohickey which you though was
neat, made a few more for a few friends, got encouraged and made some more,
which got snapped up, and then before you knew it millions were using your
stuff and you got a cult following?  I'd shoot myself after the 300th
autograph for sure...

UUCP: zoo.toronto.edu!generic!terranet!psavoie
ARPA: generic!terranet!psavoie@zoo.toronto.edu
INET: psavoie@terranet.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
From: jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jonny Ray Purvis)
Subject: Re: Hero System damage
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.223255.5461@cco.caltech.edu> trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip) writes:

large snip here

>Note also that 'chest' is considered to be the miscellaneous muscle and
>lungs and whatnot. The heart is 'vitals'. This works fairly well: a
>shot through the lungs or diaphragm isn't going to be instantly fatal,
>but may do you in through blood loss, respiratory failure, or infection
>later.

While it would make more sense this way, given the damages stated for the
vitals region, the vitals is actually the area between the thighs and
below the belly-button (approx.).  Check the hit location tables and the
armor tables for proof of this.  Personally I feel that the damage for this
region is overstated, and tend to believe that they did this to simulate
guys getting hit in the testicles, which of course doesn't apply to females
and most aliens and monsters.  The only rational reason I can see for the 
increased damage is the possibility of hitting the kidneys.  Personally,
I feel that the chest should have higher damage ratings than the stomach
and vitals, which could be combined into one catagory as they are similar
in damage potential.  I would rate the chest as X 4 stun, X 1 1/2 body, and
X 1 1/2 normal stun.  The new guts region would have X 3 stun, X 1 body,
and X 1 normal stun.  As it now stands, it is better to go for a gut shot
than chest, even though chest shots will kill one quicker.

Jon Purvis
jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Kender
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:00:28 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BtEBDx.E8B@wpi.WPI.EDU> rparker@wpi.WPI.EDU (Richard E Parker) writes:


[On klepto kenders and being annoying and how they HAVE to play that way.]

Have you ever read the DragonLance chronicles/legends books?  It was in
these books that the kender race was created.  The main kender in the
book was one Tasselhoff Burrfoot, who was a member of an adventuring party,
went with them everywhere, and if I remember correctly, didn't steal anything
from the party.  Ever.  If he did, it was seldom enough that it didn't matter.

He never stole anything that was important to the party.  No one ever ran
into battle to find his sword was missing.  No mage ever went to cast spells
only to find all his reagents had been swiped.

Kenders don't steal because they *have* to.  They just have an insatiable
curiosity.  It's very easy to see something that looks very pretty and
become curious.  You take it (no one will notice, in all likelihood), see
what it is, and replace it (either with the object, or with something else).
In the DL hardcover, it even stated that a kender is just as likely to
*drop* something as he is to pick something up.

Kenders are NOT klepto's, and they don't have to be played that way.  They
just have to be curious, naive, fun-loving.  In the end, Tas had to stop
hanging around with other kenders.  He wasn't like them, and didn't like
to be around them.  Why?  He had lost his curious nature.  He had learned
to much about the world, and he wasn't the innocent being that all kenders
are.  In a very real sense, he had ceased to be a kender.

That's what it means to be a kender.  Theivery has nothing to do with
it.  Tas was easily one of my favorite characters in the story because he was
just *so* funny.

One of my favorite parts of the story:  The mage in the group has just
gone from wearing the red robes (neutrality) to the black robes (evil).
Everyone is, of course, disturbed by this, because they realize that this
character has now chosen to lead a life of evil.  Everyone except Tas.

"Raistlin, your robes!  Does this mean that you're really evil now?
 Would you mind if I touched them?  Alright, alright, there's no need to
 glare at me that way, it's just that they looked so soft."

The fact that Raistlin has become completely evil doesn't bother him
at all.  Neither does the fact that Raistlin is easily angered, and Tas
knows that he could be killed very easily by the mage, if Raist chose.
He's just curious, and that's all.  This is what it means to be a kender.

If you ever have a chance, I recommend reading the books.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: bret@technix.mn.org (Bret Indrelee)
Subject: Re: Bastard DM From Hell Pt 2
Organization: Private System - Saint Paul, MN
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.195509.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>As Phil pointed out we found it on a pedastal.  Now however I can't use it for
>me.  I can transcribe spells from the book but not use the book to learn them
>after I have comprehended them by use of spells etc.  According to the DMG this
>must be done as each mage records the spell differently, and if this is so then
>why bother with spell transcription anyway when you may as well make it up for
>yourself.  Imagine making a text book about engineering and just recording it
>slightly differently.  Whooops sorry about that bridge falling down....
>
>

Actually, this would be an O.K. ruling.  Spells are supposed to be secret,
arcane knowledge.  Alchemists used to use different symbols and secret
notations to hide their knowledge from anyone else who used their log
books.

In the abscence of a strong guild or society of mages, it is rather unlikely
that each mage uses the same exact notation.  If the system is still that
of master teaching apprentice, with little or no free trade of information
or cooperation among mages, this is a good ruling.

It is actually more difficult for a society to agree on a standard form
of notation than it is for each magi to create his own private set of
symbols, based on the symbols taught him when he was an apprentice.

It is more difficult to exchange information with another person, because
some or all the symbols might have different meaning, but it is easier to
work with symbols that make sense to you without reference to any set of
standards that society might impose.

-Bret
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Indrelee               |   Pretend there is something profound
email: bret@technix.mn.org  |   written here.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ed. Players Handbook errata?
Reply-To: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 06:09:45 GMT


In a previous article, dgc@cs.purdue.EDU (Doug Crabill) says:

>Someone was kind enough to mail it to me.  I have placed it in
>greyhawk.stanford.edu:D_D/incoming/phb.errata for those who are
>interested.

I dont have ftp access.  Is there some kind soul out there who would email
this to me?  It would be much appreciated.
 
Thanks.. Todd


-- 
* Todd Hanson                              ba446@cleveland.freenet.edu  *
*                                                                       *
*     "No woman's worth a bullet between the eyes.. "                   *
*          "Depends on who's eyes.. and which woman."    'Bugsy'        *
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Experience points for roleplaying 
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:23:13 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <Bt1Er3.B5J@acsu.buffalo.edu>, swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.114821.14031@eng.cam.ac.uk> yt1@eng.cam.ac.uk (Y. Tremblay) writes:
>  I wrote:
>>>>Part of the reason they've advanced so slowly is that an awful lot 
>>>>of their time is spent pursuing "sub-plots" in my campaign.  This
>>>>involves lots of roleplaying, but doesn't earn them any adventuring
>>>>experience points - although it does gain them valuable information,
>>>>and generally make their lives more interesting and varied.
>>
>>    But, why don't you give any experience for roleplaying, solving a 
>>plot ?  
> 
> Because that increases their "wiliness", their "knowlege", and their
> "adventuring experience", but won't make them any better able to 
> swing a sword / cast a spell.  The benefit they get from solving a
> plot is in becoming better players, not in their characters' getting
> more hit points.

	In other words, you don't give them experience for having experience.

>>The way you give experience points (IMHO) encourage hack'n slash since
>>it is the only way to get a concrete award.  But maybe you have
>>exceptional players...
> 
> Maybe I'm spoiled, and I -do- just have incredible players, who really
> do care more about roleplaying than about powergaming.  I once just
> -forgot- to give them experience points for killing a "true" dragon
> (a beast that makes a monster manual dragon look like a jackrabbit).
> They didn't notice until three playing sessions later (the next time
> that they actually had a battle, and went to update their XP totals).

	Apparently you do have an exceptional group of players. Even my players
(a very good lot I've had over the years) want to know their xp totals by the
beginning of the next session. Your system may work for your group, but there
are many out there it would crash 'n' burn with -- powergamers would run
one-dimensional juggernauts because there was nothing stopping them, and
roleplayers in such groups would have to get munchkinized or get left out.
Maybe I'm just used to the way GURPS awards character points: for roleplaying
and for mission success. You don't get experience for hack 'n' slash or finding
treasure.

Brandon Cope