HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davis@cwis.unomaha.edu (James J Davis)
Subject: Re: GURPS Vampire?????????
Keywords: NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:40:47 GMT

tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>--Me writes:

>>The Storyteller system is a system without an emphasis on mechanics--a 
>>godsend to players like me who enjoy the ROLE playing 

>Dunno about that.  I like to role play as much as the next person
>(and, no I'm not sitting next to a combat machine!) but the mechanics
>of the game, really get kinda screwy at times.  We had a perfectly 
>good session derailed last week because we ran into problems with
>the concept of Chimenistry.  I'd prefer some structure in my games.

My exposure to Storyteller system led me to believe that it was kinda
made to be played without mechanics at all.  However, I feel as if the
authors were too spineless to put thier money where their mouth was.
Instead, weak mechanics come with the game, making it no more or no
less a roleplaying game than any other game on the market.  Actually,
I think GURPS does a better job of encouraging roleplaying with it's
mental disadvantages than Storyteller does overall. 

>>GURPS Vampire is a mutation of all the Storyteller system stands for.

>I'm not sure.  There are a whole newsgroup of people who have opinions
>different than you.

>>If you haven't played Vampire the Masquerade, all you've
>>been doing is rolling the dice.

A pretty pompous statement.  My best roleplaying experiences have been
in Hero System, on days when I didn't even pull out my character sheet
or dice.  Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.  On the
other hand, I've played Vampire the Masquerade, and found that I had
to have my dice out, found that my character's stats were critical
(and, due to poor choices, woefully deficient) and that the whole
concept of the vampire was warped into a fixed stereotype.

>However, the many games I've played, all you get to do is either
>be hosed by poorly writen rules, see the referee toss what little
>system out the window as it doesn't work worth a snit anyhow.

My experience is similar to this too.  I simply gave up on the
game, and explored the options of Hero Vampire.  GURPS Vampire would
be OK too.

-james
From: dddawson@lpl.arizona.edu (Doug Dawson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:10:57 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

>dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>
>> But, with point allocation you NEVER have to get an exception or have the
>> GM give you a special favor.  You start with the character you want from
>> the beginning.

   Uh-huh.  So, I take it you use only the book-listed disadvantages, et
   al?  In the games I've played in, there's nearly always at least one
   player who wants, say, a phobia not listed in the GURPS manual, or
   a Limited Power limitation not listed in the Hero manual.  In these
   situations, the player may decide on what a reasonable value would
   be, but they have to clear it with the GM.

   And of course, in both PA and RA systems, it's _always_ nearly
   required to clear the concept overall with the GM, but that's a 
   different argument.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:08:46 GMT

In article <773@sandia.UUCP> dlewis@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis ) writes:
>Face facts: to a large part of the RPG world, character creation ends when
>the character sheet is filled out. Most players at least say that they will
>develope the character personality as play proceeds and some really do, but 
>there's usually nothing created by this process that we can lay our hands on 
>to make a judgement of the creative merits of the character.
  I disagree. Personality traits in Ars Magica and quirks in GURPS are there
primarily to provide a mechanism in the game to describe a character's 
personality. One of the grogs (fighter type) in our current Ars Magica
campaign has the flaw that he thinks all women are inferior. This hasn't
really come up in play that much, but it very much helps to define the
character.
  In the Ars Magica campaign I'm in, people don't really develop their 
characters personalities in play. They decide their characters' personalities
more or less during creation, and use that as a guide for what virtues/flaws
and personality traits to take. The character who's really good at intimidation
has a good score because he likes to do it, not the other way 'round. There are
mechanisms for describing character's personality in some systems. If you
use them then you get a good idea how the character thinks in most situations.





-- 
Mike Swaim            | Canada will become the next world power
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | and they will work to ENSLAVE all the nations
Disclamer: I lie      | of your planet. -Ricardo
Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hasdtr yy['u [{}_+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:46:44 GMT

bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

> I honestly don't like every stuck into numbers.  I do happen to like Words
> because it gives a special feel to a character. You're not Joe Who Has A
> High Will, you're Joe with the Strong Will advantage.  This will have
> different effects on different people, but most of my players happen to
> really like it as well.

Hmm, is that another difference between the "attributes" and "advantages"
groups?  One type is number oriented, and the other is word oriented?  That's
probably too general an observation.

I perceive attributes as a measure of an individual.  The character is a
person, and the attributes simply describe who and what he is.  The "xx
advantage" sounds more like a receipt of purchases.

It's all in the mind.  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: dlewis@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis )
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 4 Nov 92 13:47:30 GMT
Organization: Sandia Natl Labs, Div. 9224

In article <Bx562H.6It@rice.edu> swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article <770@sandia.UUCP> dlewis@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis ) writes:
>>I think I've found, as Zappa would say, "The crux of the biscuit!": What
>>constitutes a character? I, and perhaps others, was assuming that 
>>aside from the game dependent character sheet there would be at least a
>>minimal character history which is to me the main PRODUCT of the creative
>>PROCESS that we would have to judge.
>  I generally don't care about my character's history. If it's necessary
>for my character's conception, I'll work one out, but I rarely have to.
>Instead, I try to figure out how my character thinks, and what his/her
>personality is.
>
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that only a history would do. Anything that
details the characters personality will do, but it MUST be concrete if we're
going to try to judge its creative merits.

Face facts: to a large part of the RPG world, character creation ends when
the character sheet is filled out. Most players at least say that they will
develope the character personality as play proceeds and some really do, but 
there's usually nothing created by this process that we can lay our hands on 
to make a judgement of the creative merits of the character.

If we look at just the part of the generation process that involves filling
in the character sheet, then PA is clearly more creative than RA since in 
PA you are active: making choices, selecting elements, pursuing lines of 
developement, etc. In RA you are passive: only rolling dice and writing results.
In PA at its best, you start with a character concept (developement of 
which may be a detailed and creative process in itself) then you select 
and combine elements to flesh out the concept and create (notice that word)
a cohesive whole. In RA the really creative part doesn't begin until the
character sheet is done.

Now, if we look at character creation (either RA or PA) at its best. Where 
people go beyond what the game system calls for and add detail to a character 
in the form of histories or whatever, we see true opportunities for creative 
expression. At this stage the amount of creativity that can be shown is
far greater than that used in filling out the character sheet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis
It is inevitable that we shall eventually become indistinguishable from our 
machinery! OR Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs are better than Sex, Drugs, 
and Rock n'Roll! Well ... Maybe not better than Sex!
uucp:      ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!dlewis
InterNet:  unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!dlewis   or   sandia!dlewis@unmvax.unm.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:18:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Nick Janow theorizes:

>I suppose that if I built a character concept around a swashbuckling pirate,
>I'd be unhappy if the GM didn't give me the opportunity to have flashy
>shipboard combat that met my concept.  If I randomly-generated a pirate, I
>might find it more interesting to see what the character will do when stuck
>in a desert city and having to deal with political intrigue with his
>negotiation skill rather than his combat skills.

This has nothing to do with how you generated the character.  Generating a

character by point allocation has everything to do with making a fully
developed, internally consistent and interesting character.  That character
is going to be just as adaptable to different situations as a randomly
generated character -- in fact, you can design a character who is more
flexible and less limited, by design, so that he will be prepared for odd
situations.

In roleplaying you're not designing characters to fit a particular situation,
you're designing them to be PEOPLE in their world, and to deal with the
situations they get thrown into, whatever they are.  And that's the case with
both PA and random characters -- but PA lets you do it better.

Dave
From: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:19:50 GMT
Reply-To: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)


In article <Bx562H.6It@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks
Swaim) writes:
> In article <770@sandia.UUCP> dlewis@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis ) writes:
> >I think I've found, as Zappa would say, "The crux of the biscuit!": What
> >constitutes a character? I, and perhaps others, was assuming that 
> >aside from the game dependent character sheet there would be at least a
> >minimal character history which is to me the main PRODUCT of the creative
> >PROCESS that we would have to judge.
>   I generally don't care about my character's history. If it's necessary
> for my character's conception, I'll work one out, but I rarely have to.
> Instead, I try to figure out how my character thinks, and what his/her
> personality is.

  Personality and history are strongly correlated, IMHO. And there's
nothing like a good background (played background is even better) to
put life in a character.
  Of course, that means you must have the GM near, and that you are
going to give him more work (to prepare an 8-to-20+-hour background play
requires some work...), but is it so much better for the PC. Useful for
a campaign-free character, it is nearly indispensible for campaign-
oriented characters.

							Redwing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Test
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:31:17 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Organization: GE Power Generation

This is a test.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:13:05 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>
>Fourteen attributes aren't significantly more difficult to handle in game
>play. How much longer does it take to locate STR among four attributes than
>among fourteen?  

Sorry, Nick, I disagree.  It's a lot quicker to find one of four than
one of fourteen or fifteen.

>Are you considering character generation, where determining the starting
>level for each skill might require looking up several attributes?  

I wasn't, no.  I don't know why I used the word complexity - it was
definitely a mistake.  I don't mean during character creation, I mean
during play.  Let's call it less smooth-playing with fifteen attributes
than four.

>I ask again: what is this "complexity" that GURPS--and other "few attributes"
>supporters--are trying to use as an argument against a larger number of
>attributes?  "More complex" is not a valid argument unless you can define
>what "more complex" is, and can show why it would negatively affect game
>play.

Right.  I agree the word complexity is wrong.  Smoothness of play is
what I mean.  I don't know how I got into this argument in the first
place - I suspect it was correcting some mistaken notion that John Kim
had.  He's the one that first dragged GURPS into this discussion - but
then I've noticed he has a very large axe against GURPS to grind, so I
shouldn't be surprised.

Play any game you want, any way you like, Nick - I simply and honestly
believe, having tried all sorts of games, that one with four attributes
plays more smoothly than one with double-digit attributes.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd
From: barnett@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Glen Barnett)
Subject: Distribution (was Re: Seeking RPG group)
Organization: The Australian Graduate School of Management
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:03:09 GMT

Could you *please* watch the "Distribution:" of your messages
if you post messages only of local interest. A lot of these
posts seem to get worldwide distribution.

As a recent (but not typical) example of what I'm on about, consider this post:
In article <1992Nov3.141128.2551@bvc.edu> meierdalepau@bvc.edu writes:
>	ATTENTION GAMERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>	I am presently seeking an RPG group and at this point any group 
>would do, but I am generally seeking ____RESPONSIBLE____ gamers (you know 
>what I mean!)  I have the rules for 1st edition STAR WARS:  THE ROLEPLAYING 
>GAME, 2nd edition PARANOIA, Revised TOON, and 4th edition GAMMA WORLD.  
>Please e-mail me a reply or post a reply on the 'Net.
>
>Dale Meier


I don't think the whole world needs to see a post like that.

Please note that I'm *not* flaming Dale, or even accusing
him specifically of not watching his "Distribution" - in this particular
case it may be my local newsreader that's in the wrong.

Just please only post to relevant areas if you have 
any control. We need to keep the noise down. 

best wishes,
Glen
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: brehob@plantain.cps.msu.edu (Mark W Brehob)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Gen Con, dealers area, Copyrights and MORE!
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:09:42 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University


I  (like 1/2 the rest of frp land) am looking at starting up a gaming  
company.

I have a number of questions, and I am sure that there are other questions
I probably need answers to that I haven't thought of yet.

Here we go:

1) Can anyone explain the laws/rules/guidelines for using other companies
games and products. I have seen people putting out "compatible with AD&D"  
stuff before.  Do they have TSR's permission?  What can one do legally?  

2) Any clues on how much dealer space is at Gen Con?  I've been going for 
10 years, but never bothered to ask anyone.

3) Anyone in Michigan know of a cheap printing firm?
I'm starting to look in East Lancing and Lancing, but would love  
recommendations.  Also, anyone have an idea what 'reasonable costs' are?


Thank you in advance, Mark Brehob

sigs, we don't need no stinking .sigs
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advantages
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:59:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov9.195951.12743
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

>bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>
>> I honestly don't like every stuck into numbers.  I do happen to like Words
>> because it gives a special feel to a character. You're not Joe Who Has A
>> High Will, you're Joe with the Strong Will advantage.  This will have
>> different effects on different people, but most of my players happen to
>> really like it as well.
>
	But the problem with this is that Stupid Joe with the Strong Will
advantage has a lower will than Brilliant Josephine with the Weak Will
disadvantage.  So you have a not uncommon case where the words are at odds
with reality.

--
gharris@jade.tufts.edu          
George W. Harris              	"He'd kill us if he had the chance."  
Dept. of Mathematics            
Tufts University              			The Conversation  
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:39:18 GMT

	To some degree, this is just an argument over notation. Some people 
like to have things well organized, and look in a given place whenever they 
want to reference something. Others prefer as compact a notation as possible, 
only writing down a few things, and figuring out the others when needed. 

	Neither of these is strictly simpler or more complex. Whether it is 
easier or harder depends on the person. 

	That said, I would comment on:

bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>	I honestly don't like every stuck into numbers.  I do happen
>to like Words because it gives a special feel to a character.
>You're not Joe Who Has A High Will, you're Joe with the Strong Will
>advantage.  

	Again, (and no one seems to notice this), the advantage is 
deceptive, because someone who is "Weak-Willed" could easily have a higher 
Will roll than someone who is "Strong-Willed", because their IQ's are 
different. That higher IQ's correspond to stronger Willpower is fairly non-
intuitive to most people, hence this generates some confusion. 

	I think the most important thing is that attributes be as 
descriptive as possible. In this, I have some objections to such things 
as the 'Smell/Taste' attribute in Legacy - although I can understand it if 
the game covers a range of species where Sm/T ranges widely. In humans, 
levels of Sm/T do not distinguish people significantly (not noticable in 
any normal circumstances). 
	OTOH, I also disapprove of attributes that combine too many diverse 
elements. I think HT in GURPS is a good example of this - covers size and 
toughness (hit points), general health, and many others (even to the point 
of governing Sex Appeal!). Charisma in AD&D and other games also strikes 
me as being extremely vague - this might be solved with 'aspecting' as 
suggested by Ars Magica, Vampire, and most recently Bryce. This is writing 
in a verbal description of *how* your character is charismatic. I.E. 
Charisma (Commanding Presence) 15. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You don't need a weatherman to know which way
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | the wind blows."
Columbia University         |                             - Bob Dylan
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd
From: cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters)
Subject: Re: Distribution (was Re: Seeking RPG group)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:26:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.050309.18153@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> barnett@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Glen Barnett) writes:
>Could you *please* watch the "Distribution:" of your messages
>if you post messages only of local interest. A lot of these
>posts seem to get worldwide distribution.
>
[snippage to reduce bandwidth]
>
>I don't think the whole world needs to see a post like that.
>
>Please note that I'm *not* flaming Dale, or even accusing
>him specifically of not watching his "Distribution" - in this particular
>case it may be my local newsreader that's in the wrong.
>
>Just please only post to relevant areas if you have 
>any control. We need to keep the noise down. 

Likewise, reg.games.frp.announce is open to posts requesting gamers/gm.
I do check distribution on these types of posts and try to restrict them
to the area needed.  I keep a big list of distribution codes in my
"how to keep the newsgroup running" notebook.

Normally, in the USA you can restrict a post to your state by putting
the standard post-officce abbreviation (LOWERCASE) in your header
in the Distribution: line.  Note if your newsreader does not supply one,
if you can get to the header you can add one.

I'll post the list of geographic codes with today's FAQ.

-Coyt




Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:37:54 GMT

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

>+ I prefer random-generation, because that suits my creative needs best.  If
>+ I had to use point allocation, I'd probably end up rolling some numbers to
>+ give me some direction.  I also think that I'd like the PA character less,
>+ since so much of it has already been determined, leaving less to
>+ explore--and surprise me--during role-playing.
>
> Orthogonal issue.  Point allocation per se demands no more of the character
> to be determined than random rolling methods.  It seems to me like much of
> your and others' objection here is about the complexity of most point-
> based systems, and not point allocation as a process.

No, it's not orthogonal.  For me, the point-allocated character is different
from the random-generated one.  It is a psychological difference.   The
point-allocated one is built from a personality concept from my imagination;
the random one has more personality to be explored.  I think an analogy might
be adventuring in a dungeon you didn't design ( = random generation) vs
adventuring in one that you designed.  In the latter, there are no surprises
except for random events.

I'm not sure if that's a complete or even correct explanation of the
difference.  However, despite being difficult to explain, it is a real
phenomenon, at least for me.

> After all, AD&D is basically only random rolling insofar as statistics are
> concerned and their resultant impact on the possible choices of careers. If
> you had the choice between D&D characters with their stats generated by
> points or by rolling, do you see any reason why you would like the point
> allocated character less, *even* if you used dice to determine how to
> allocate points?

If you use dice to determine how to allocate points, you are using random
generation.  Random generation means letting the dice decide the numbers.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy